Return to Transcripts main page
CNN News Central
GA Prosecutor Nathan Wade Questioned About Relationship With Fani Willis. Aired 11-11:30a ET
Aired February 15, 2024 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[11:00:00]
(OFF-MIC)
ASHLEIGH MERCHANT, DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR MIKE ROMAN: It's supposed to be number. I guess they're all numbered one, so. Number one, number one again, and then the third number one.
ANNA GREEN CROSS, ATTORNEY FOR FULTON COUNTY DA'S OFFICE: Haven't seen my five (inaudible) or something?
MERCHANT: He didn't put page numbers on it.
(OFF-MIC)
MERCHANT: I don't know how to tell you what number one. Because when you responded, you put number one on all of them.
JUDGE SCOTT MCAFEE, FULTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT: Can you just point to it.
NATHAN WADE, SPECIAL PROSECUTOR IN TRUMP'S GA ELECTION CASE: Yes.
MERCHANT: This one. This one, I'm talking about this number one, where it is tapped. There's two number ones that are tapped.
WADE: OK.
MERCHANT: And the same page number, but it is the second page.
WADE: All right.
MERCHANT: They're asking if you have any receipts for restaurants, hotels, bars, things like that.
WADE: The first number one?
MERCHANT: I believe it's the second number one.
WADE: The second number one. OK.
MERCHANT: OK. 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. Correct? WADE: It says, identify any and all occasions.
MERCHANT: OK. And so, (inaudible) it says to identify any and all occasions where you entertained a member of the other sex, OK, who's not related to blood and including dining, drinking, restaurants, bars, pubs, hotels, all of that. OK. And what was your answer to that?
WADE: None.
MERCHANT: None. OK. So May 30th, 2023, you prepared this document?
WADE: I did.
MERCHANT: Submitted it?
WADE: I did.
MERCHANT: And it says none as far as entertaining a member of the opposite sex.
WADE: It does.
MERCHANT: OK. No hotels, no bars, no restaurants?
WADE: Correct.
MERCHANT: OK. You again updated that. Let's see. You updated it on December 22nd, 2023? And I'm going to mark that as defendant's number five, and I have copies. Is that correct?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
MERCHANT: OK. And then you updated it once again on January 26th, 2024, correct?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
MERCHANT: OK. It's that one. May I approach the witness again, judge?
MCAFEE: Is that what you're marking as defense exhibit six?
MERCHANT: Yes, judge. I'm marking number six is the January 26th, 2024 interrogatory, and then one, so that one, and then number five is the December 22nd, 2023 interrogatory response.
MCAFEE: All right. Are you tendering those at this time?
MERCHANT: Yes, I am.
MCAFEE: All right. Any objection from any council, defense exhibit five and six?
CROSS: Yes. No objection.
MCAFEE: Thank you, Ms. Cross. Seeing none others. MERCHANT: Luckily I have for you. So now that you have those, let's just talk about those for a minute. Those were verified, so sworn under oath.
WADE: Mm-hmm.
MERCHANT: OK. And one of them was December 22nd, and then of this last year, so last December. And then one was just recently submitted in January, right?
WADE: Mm-hmm.
MERCHANT: OK. In May 20, what, let's see, May 10th, 2023, Judge Thompson heard a motion to compel in your divorce case as well, correct?
WADE: Yes.
MERCHANT: OK. And you were actually held in a willful contempt?
CROSS: I'm going to object to the relevance.
MCAFEE: Ms. Merchant.
MERCHANT: His credibility is relevant, judge. And if he was held in willful contempt for failing to provide answers and documents, I think that's relevant to this court.
MCAFEE: How is that a prior false act or crime of conviction or anything else allowed for impeachment of the rules of evidence?
MERCHANT: 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.
[11:05:05]
MCAFEE: But just contempt generally can be for many different things, like a failure to produce is not necessarily a false act, right?
MERCHANT: Right. And he's welcome to explain that.
MCAFEE: He may not have to. Ms. Cross?
CROSS: I object to the relevance of that. That's clearly not a proper impeachment. We're going pretty far field into divorce matters that don't have any direct relevance to anything that's pending for the court. The court objected the relevance to that and need further --
MCAFEE: All right. Not seeing that being a proper grounds for impeachment. It's sustained.
MERCHANT: OK. Let's talk about this, December 22nd, 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?
CROSS: I'm going to object to the phrasing of that question. I don't believe that's an accurate read of the interrogatory.
MCAFEE: All right. Let's be precise, Ms. Merchant.
MERCHANT: And you please read it. I want to make sure I'm accurate. Please read it.
WADE: Which number?
MERCHANT: 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?
WADE: Yes.
MERCHANT: OK. And you answered that you did not have any documents to that effect, correct?
WADE: Correct.
MERCHANT: OK. And that was on December 22nd, 2023?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
MERCHANT: You updated those responses again after the motion to disqualify was filed, though, correct?
WADE: When was the motion filed?
MERCHANT: January 8th, 2024, when I filed the motion to disqualify you and alleged that you had a romantic relationship with Ms. Willis?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
MERCHANT: After that, you updated these responses, correct?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
MERCHANT: 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 245505, correct?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
MERCHANT: OK. And both of these are under oath?
WADE: Yes, ma'am. MERCHANT: 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?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
MERCHANT: OK. 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?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
MERCHANT: OK. And just to be clear, was it --
CROSS: 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.
MERCHANT: That's why I was just about to ask him. So that privilege covers infamy or Fifth Amendment privilege, correct?
WADE: So it was a privacy privilege is what I 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 former wife's divorce lawyer.
MERCHANT: OK.
WADE: 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.
MERCHANT: So your answer is in December of 2023, that you didn't have any documents about any travel that you took with Ms. Willis, that wasn't true, though, correct?
WADE: They didn't ask me about any documents regarding Ms. Willis.
MERCHANT: A romantic partner. They asked you for documents regarding a romantic partner. So I'm sorry I inserted Ms. Willis's name. Let me rephrase the question. They asked you for documents about travel with a romantic partner in December 2023. And you, under oath, said you did not have any of those, correct?
WADE: I did not.
MERCHANT: OK.
WADE: And they asked me about gifts.
MERCHANT: Right.
WADE: I never purchased a gift for Ms. Willis. MERCHANT: 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?
WADE: I did not. And do not have any receipts for any of those things.
MERCHANT: OK. And part of the civil discovery, they say that even if you don't have it in your pocket, if it's within your purvey, you got to get it and give it to them, correct?
CROSS: Your honor, I'm going to object again to the relevance of the questions about the scope of civil discovery. I think she's asking about statements he made in pleadings. The answers are already in the record. And --
MCAFEE: All right. To the extent you're trying to establish a prior mistruth, Ms. Merchant, I'll allow you to ask a few more follow ups, but if it's not there, we have to move on.
MERCHANT: Thank you. So in 2023, December, you said you didn't have any receipts.
[11:10:05]
DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: So instead of being in South Carolina and other states campaigning, I'm stuck here. It's an election interference case. Nobody's ever seen anything like it in this country. It's a disgrace. It's a disgraceful situation, actually. And we'll just have to figure it out. I'll be here during the day and I'll be campaigning during the night. Biden should be doing the same thing, but he'll be sleeping.
This is all from the DOJ. This all comes out of Washington. They're coordinated with the district attorney and the AG. The case tomorrow, which is a rigged deal, is all coordinated with the district attorney, and it's coordinated with the attorney general of New York, Letitia James, who wouldn't be ashamed of herself. She's campaigned for years of trying to get Trump without knowing anything about me. It's all a rigged -- it's a rigged state. It's a rigged city. It's a shame.
What they ought to do is go out and take care of the violent crime and the migrant crime that's destroying people and killing people. Not a case that everybody says you take a look at the legal.
MERCHANT: In that affidavit, you swore under oath, correct?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
MERCHANT: And in that affidavit, you swore that, well, first of all, do you recognize the affidavit?
WADE: I do.
MERCHANT: OK. Did you sign the affidavit under oath?
WADE: I did. MERCHANT: And you gave this affidavit specifically to refute the allegations that I had raised?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
MERCHANT: Nobody forced you to sign this?
WADE: No, ma'am.
MERCHANT: You chose to sign it?
WADE: I did.
MERCHANT: And you signed it on purpose to admit into court to refute allegations?
WADE: I did.
MERCHANT: You signed it specifically to prove that you were not in a relationship with Willis prior to November 2021, correct?
WADE: Correct.
MERCHANT: OK. And you were a lawyer when you signed it?
WADE: I was.
MERCHANT: And you're still a lawyer today, correct?
WADE: I am.
MERCHANT: When were you barred?
WADE: 1999.
MERCHANT: OK. And you believe that your relationship with Ms. Willis is subject to attorney-client privilege, correct?
CROSS: I'm going to object to that, your honor. I don't think that's factually 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, I think, is inappropriate.
MCAFEE: 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. Merchant?
MERCHANT: Yes, judge. It was. I asked if he believed his relationship with Ms. Willis is subject to attorney-client privilege.
MCAFEE: OK. I don't see why yes or no would be barred.
CROSS: Maybe I'm not understanding the question. If the question is, does Mr. Wade and District Attorney Willis have an attorney-client relationship?
MERCHANT: It is not.
CROSS: 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. 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 objection.
MCAFEE: 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 that 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?
MERCHANT: 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 relationship is subject to one?
CROSS: I'm going to object to that question as it's phrased. In what context, any conversation with his attorneys is privilege, that I think is clear. What's not clear to me from that question is, is that, is Ms. Merchant asking in the context of your communication with your attorneys, is that or outside that context is it.
MCAFEE: Right. And, Ms. Merchant, I think we need to figure out what are we getting at with this.
MERCHANT: I'm just trying to figure out if he thought that their relationship is subject to an attorney-client privilege. I mean, it's been asserted. I think it's going to be asserted. And that was all I was asking.
MCAFEE: I mean the actions themselves wouldn't be an issue. It's more communication.
MERCHANT: Someone saw them. Someone had knowledge of it. Is that attorney-client privilege? I want to know.
MCAFEE: All right. Well, I guess I would find his legal opinion on this isn't relevant, we can deal with that as it comes up. So, sustained.
[11:15:04]
MERCHANT: In 2022, in this affidavit, you swore that you and Willis developed a personal relationship.
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
MERCHANT: OK. And you said that didn't develop until 2022, correct?
WADE: That's correct.
MERCHANT: OK. And that's different from what you said in your pleading in May 2023 in the divorce case, correct?
WADE: No, ma'am.
MERCHANT: In May 2023, when you were asked if. If you had a -- if you'd had any affairs, essentially, and you said none?
WADE: That's correct.
MERCHANT: OK. So in May 2023 you said you had not -- in May 2023, in the divorce case, you said you had not had a personal relationship, an affair, a romantic relationship with anyone?
WADE: That's correct.
MERCHANT: But you told this court in the affidavit that you did have one that started in 2022, so that would have been ongoing at 2023.
WADE: So here, I think there's a distinction, if you'd allow me to explain.
MERCHANT: Please.
WADE: The interrogatory asks the question during the course of your marriage --
MERCHANT: Or to date, it actually says --
CROSS: I'm going to request that the witness be permitted to answer.
MCAFEE: Mr. Wade?
WADE: So my marriage was irretrievably broken in 2015, ma'am, by agreement. My wife and I agreed that once she had the affair in 2015, that 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 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'm going to say because my marriage was irretrievably broken, I was free to have a relationship.
MERCHANT: So the question, though, was if you had a relationship, and in 2023, you said you did not. And that is different than what you said in this affidavit, correct?
WADE: No, ma'am. I said during the course of my marriage. So 2023 --
MERCHANT: And you believe it too.
MCAFEE: Let them finish, Ms. Merchant.
WADE: So in 2015, my marriage was irretrievably broken. So I did not have a relationship with anyone during the course of my marriage.
MERCHANT: 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?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
MERCHANT: And you said that 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?
WADE: Again, during the course of my marriage, I had no relationship or receipts.
MERCHANT: I'm not asking about during the course of your marriage.
CROSS: You honor, I'm going to ask the witness to be allowed to answer the question.
MERCHANT: Continue. I have no problem with him answering.
WADE: OK. As it relates to receipts today, I don't have any receipts, ma'am.
MERCHANT: So you don't have any travel receipts available to you for any travel that you did with Ms. Willis?
WADE: I don't have any receipts, no, ma'am.
MERCHANT: No receipts that -- so your -- you used your business credit card for these trips, correct?
WADE: I used my business credit card for everything.
MERCHANT: OK. Yes. You used it for your kids tuition?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
MERCHANT: Used it for personal travel with Ms. Willis.
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
MERCHANT: And you have receipts from those business credit cards that you have to file with your taxes, correct?
WADE: No, ma'am.
MERCHANT: No.
WADE: I file this statement, I turn over the statement, and whatever is there on the statement, the accountant looks at it and the accountant says, OK, this is personal, goes over here. This is business, goes over here. Here are your taxes.
MERCHANT: So you have those statements? We'll call them statements instead of receipts. You have those statements, correct? WADE: I have the statements, yes, ma'am.
MERCHANT: OK. But when you answered the interrogatory under oath, you said you did not have anything to show the record of travel with Ms. Willis.
WADE: I answered the question. I had no receipts, ma'am.
MERCHANT: You had no receipts, but you had statements.
WADE: I ordered the statement. Yes, ma'am.
MERCHANT: You did order the statement. OK.
WADE: I did.
MERCHANT: And so we're just talking the semantics between invoice and statements or receipt, I'm sorry.
CROSS: I'm not going to object, your honor, to the argumentative tone of the question. I believe it's an ask and answer --
MCAFEE: All right, sustain.
MERCHANT: In let's see. You also in this affidavit said that no funds paid to you for compensation as your role as special counsel was shared with Willis, correct?
WADE: That's correct.
MERCHANT: And that you never cohabitated with Willis, correct?
WADE: That's correct.
MERCHANT: By cohabitation, does that mean that you never spent the night with Willis?
WADE: I spent the night with her doing travel, yes, ma'am.
[11:20:01]
MERCHANT: OK. And so when -- so I just want to qualify your term, your use of the term cohabitation, that means you didn't live together?
WADE: That's correct.
MERCHANT: But you did spend the night together?
WADE: Yes.
MERCHANT: When was the first time you spent the night together?
CROSS: Your honor --
MERCHANT: that's the subject of his affidavit, judge. MCAFEE: 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 happened.
MERCHANT: 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 --
MCAFEE: Why don't we start with that question and go from there?
MERCHANT: And that's what I asked when the first time he spent the night with her was boss. That's --
MCAFEE: That's a different question, isn't it?
MERCHANT: OK. So let's not talk about when you spent the night. When did your romantic relationship with Ms. Willis begin?
WADE: 2022.
MERCHANT: When in 2022?
WADE: Early 2022.
MERCHANT: So you were appointed in November of 2021?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
MERCHANT: And your relationship started early. What's early? January, February?
WADE: Around March.
MERCHANT: Around March. But you two met at an October 2019 judicial conference, correct?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
MERCHANT: And describe your relationship at that point, then.
WADE: Which point?
MERCHANT: 2019?
WADE: So I was at a judicial conference to teach a course, if you will, to newer judges. I did that in 2019. As I was exiting the conference, another judge was standing outside who was a friend of mine. I stopped and exchanged pleasantries with her. And standing, talking to her at the time was then Judge Willis. She introduced us at that time. We shook hands, exchanged business cards, and I got into my vehicle and left the conference. So that meeting was probably three minutes.
MERCHANT: OK. When was the next time you talked to her?
WADE: Didn't talk to her again, probably maybe a month or a month and a half had gone by.
MERCHANT: OK. So you talked to her November maybe?
WADE: Maybe.
MERCHANT: On the phone?
WADE: On the phone.
MERCHANT: OK. How regularly did you speak with her in 2021 on the phone?
WADE: In 2021?
MERCHANT: I'm sorry, 2019, I'm so sorry. 2019, how frequently did you speak with her on the phone?
WADE: 2019, after the meeting, I probably talked to her two or three times. She would have questions. I was the district rep for the particular district that I sat in.
MERCHANT: OK.
WADE: And the judges would, when they would have questions, they sometimes would go to the rep. So she was outside of my district, but she would call me. She felt comfortable calling me to ask me the questions. I don't know if you know the racial makeup of certain 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 their private practice. So we didn't talk that often.
MERCHANT: OK.
WADE: But when she had questions, mostly legal issues that would come up, she would call me.
MERCHANT: I just want to make sure, because my question was just how many times? And you said two to three times, right?
WADE: Yes.
MERCHANT: OK. And in 2022, how frequently did you speak in 2022? This is before you were appointed.
CROSS: I'm sorry, Ms. Merchant's, your timeline, 2022?
MERCHANT: I'm sorry 2020. 2020, how frequently did you speak in 2020?
WADE: 2020, it was more frequent than '19, obviously, but.
MERCHANT: More frequent, can you tell me, approximately a month, how often you think you spoke with her on the phone?
CROSS: I'm going to object to the granular detail. I think Mr. Wade can certainly answer however he wants to. But if we're going to go through every time they spoke on the phone, as opposed to generally characterizing the relationship, it would be more detailed if necessary.
MERCHANT: Judge, I'm not going to go through every time they spoke on the phone. I'm asking for generally how frequently they spoke.
MCAFEE: I think at that level, that's fine. Overruled.
[11:25:00]
MERCHANT: Thank you. About how frequently did you speak in 2020?
WADE: Per month?
MERCHANT: 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.
WADE: No, no. We spoke on the telephone often. I mean, I don't know how many -- I couldn't give you an amount of time because you remember COVID happened, and the world was shut down on but, so we spoke on the phone more than 2019, definitely.
MERCHANT: OK. Let's qualify it. Before her election in 2020, how much -- how frequently did you speak?
WADE: You mean as she was campaigning?
MERCHANT: Before the election? Before, yes, as she was campaigning before she was elected.
WADE: It's two different animals.
MERCHANT: As she was campaigning before she was elected.
WADE: OK. 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 whole lot. But she did know that I had gone through the election process, so when things would come up, and she had questions about, she would call me and ask me, so.
MERCHANT: And just to be fair, I'm only --
MCAFEE: Ms. Merchant.
MERCHANT: 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 --
MCAFEE: You 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.
WADE: Yes, sir. So sometimes it would be like a three second call. She would go, during your election, have you ever seen this? And I would say, 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, and it'd, you know, be brief conversation, but she called.
MERCHANT: So my question was, how frequently did you speak with her prior to her election? Frequently, infrequently?
WADE: More than 2019, but it wasn't an everyday thing. No.
MERCHANT: OK. In 2021, before you were appointed in November, so January to November, 2021, the only time I'm talking about, how frequently did you speak with Ms. Willis on the phone?
WADE: In 2021, then it became frequent.
MERCHANT: Frequent?
WADE: Yes.
MERCHANT: OK. But you did not work at the DA's office at that point, correct?
WADE: I did not.
MERCHANT: 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?
WADE: Say again?
MERCHANT: The affidavit that you submitted to this court showed that Ms. Willis had paid for one flight, several hundred dollars. Is that correct?
WADE: No, ma'am. I think that are you drawing a distinction for her paying for a flight or for her actually booking a flight, because those are two separate things.
MERCHANT: I will re ask it.
WADE: OK.
MERCHANT: The affidavit you filed in this court, you alleged that Ms. Willis paid for one flight. Paid for one flight, correct?
WADE: No, ma'am.
MERCHANT: You did not allege she paid for one flight?
WADE: No, ma'am. What I allege is that our travel was split roughly, evenly. So where you see, I have booked a flight or I've paid for a flight with my credit card, what you don't see is that she covered her own flight reimbursement to me. The flights that you see here are the flights that she would have booked with her own resources, with her own card.
MERCHANT: And there's one flight, correct?
WADE: One flight reflecting that she actually booked with --
MCAFEE: Ms. Merchant, let him finish and then you can redirect him.
WADE: One flight that she actually booked? Yes. The other flights I booked, she paid for.
MERCHANT: So the affidavit, you submitted one flight that she booked and paid for?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
MERCHANT: OK.
CROSS: Your honor, I'm going to object to the phrasing of that question. The line in the affidavit is not as Ms. 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 as an exhibit. It certainly did not represent that it was the only example of the district attorney purchasing flights for Mr. Wade or for compensating of their travel.
[11:30:01]
MCAFEE: All right. Understand Ms. Cross I think that's something you can, it's now on the record, but also something you can take on cross.
CROSS: Thank you.
