Return to Transcripts main page
CNN News Central
Special Prosecutor In Trump's GA Election Case Testifies On Personal Matters And Financial Struggles. Aired 2-2:30p ET
Aired February 15, 2024 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[14:00:00]
NATHAN WADE, SPECIAL PROSECUTOR IN TRUMP'S GA ELECTION CASE: was to stay in place until the youngest could graduate and matriculate into college. We did that when she graduated and matriculated into college, at the time, my wife had moved back and forth to Houston, Texas, so she's in Texas. We take our child off to college, we come back to Georgia for a brief period of time, divorce gets filed, she gets served. There we go. Now, the reason that date was selected --
STEVE SADOW, DONALD TRUMP'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes sir, that's what I asked.
WADE: The specific reason that that specific date was selected was because she was only in town for the brief.
UNKNOWN: Your honor. This is the trademark privilege.
UNKNOWN: Why he decided to file this and why do you have the right to object on his behalf for attorney-client privilege?
UNKNOWN: Because, well, I don't.
UNKNOWN: All right, there we go.
SADOW: And I believe that he's already attempted to answer this question and there was no privilege raised, so he's given a partial answer and now he's about to finish that. So first of all, I don't think it's covered by attorney-client privilege and I'll deal with that if you want me to, but otherwise he's already answered part of it so he doesn't get to say now to stop, so.
UNKNOWN: Well, it was a long preface but I don't think it ever actually got to what you should have been at issue there. So, if you can lay the foundation we'll deal with the objection.
SADOW: Okay, take a step back. Okay, you realize that an attorney- client privilege is the privilege of the client, correct?
WADE: Yes, sir.
SADOW: And you, in connection with your representation, at least it's been proffered to the court by Mr. Bradley that it's up to you to decide whether you want to raise the privilege, right? WADE: Yes, sir.
SADOW: It's not up to Mr. Bradley.
WADE: Yes, sir.
SADOW: 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, do you not?
ANNA GREEN CROSS, ATTORNEY FOR FULTON COUNTY DA'S OFFICE: I believe that's an inappropriate question. The privilege is there.
UNKNOWN: Whether he uses it or not, it doesn't matter why. Mr. Sano, I think if we're trying to get to the answer to your question, let's figure out whether it covers the question you were trying to get to.
SADOW: And your honour, if I may finish, and your position is you have no intention of waiving your attorney-client privilege, correct?
WADE: That's correct.
SADOW: All right. Can you answer the question why you waited until November 2nd, the day after you were hired by Ms. Willis to file for divorce?
WADE: I can. Okay. So, again, Joycelyn had relocated to Texas, and she had been in Texas for months. 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.
SADOW: Okay. So, your answer as to why you waited until the day after you were hired by Ms. Willis, on which would be November 1st, 2021, to file the claim for the divorce on November 2nd, 2021, your testimony under oath is because your wife was here.
WADE: Was here. But 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.
SADOW: So your testimony --
WADE: So, the first opportunity that I had after speaking with my lawyers to take care of that, was the date it was filed and served because she happened to be here. It had nothing to do with-- that was purely coincidental, that contract.
SADOW: I understand that its pure coincidence to your testimony
(CROSSTALK)
WADE: And understand that this was by agreement because she and I. She being my wife and I, that we would divorce when the kids matriculated out and that that would have actually 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 will kick in. And then I was forced to do it when I did it.
SADOW: So, if I understood correctly, again, you tell me if I'm wrong, is it your testimony that your wife was not in Atlanta, Georgia, or the metro area throughout October of 2021?
WADE: No. In October of 2021, she was back and forth between here and Texas.
[14:05:09]
SADOW: So she was, at least on some occasions, in the Atlanta area.
WADE: But that was during the time when we were working through the consent agreement that that fell through.
CROSS: Again, I think we're pretty far afield on relevance. The answer to the question about the timing of the divorce filling and--
UNKNOWN: Understood, Ms. Cross. Mr. Sadow, where are we going from here?
SADOW: 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 purpose.
UNKNOWN: Well, we might have to discuss whether that's a collateral issue altogether.
SADOW: No, I'm just saying if, I didn't say we will, but we --
UNKNOWN: Okay.
SADOW: 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, correct?
WADE: Yes, sir.
SADOW: And how did you become aware of those?
WADE: Just through conversation, they told me.
SADOW: With who? Conversation with who?
WADE: Mr. Bradley and Mr. Campbell.
SADOW: So you were discussing matters with Mr. Bradley which were not related to attorney-client privilege, correct?
WADE: Related to the contract, yes.
SADOW: Okay. But you were having conversations that would not, even though if I understood correctly, Mr. Bradley was your attorney at the time, correct?
WADE: At what time? SADOW: At the time that Mr. Bradley- Okay. Received his contract from Fulton County, which would have been beginning of January or in January of 2021, right?
WADE: Is that the date of his contract?
SADOW: Pretty close.
WADE: I don't know what the date of his contract was, but if it was after the date of the filing of divorce, then yeah.
SADOW: 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. Yes, sir. Correct?
WADE: Yes, sir. That is correct.
SADOW: When Mr. Bradley received his contract with Fulton County, that was in 2021, correct?
WADE: I don't know.
SADOW: 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?
WADE: Yes.
SADOW: 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?
WADE: They were not.
SADOW: Okay. And that meant that not all communications with Mr. Bradley were covered by attorney-client privilege, correct?
WADE: Well, those certainly weren't.
SADOW: 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?
WADE: Those communications were not.
SADOW: So, there were communications outside of the attorney-client privilege, correct? With Mr. Bradley?
WADE: If you're asking me if I ever communicated with him outside of the attorney-client privilege, the answer is yes. Okay. I communicated with him outside the attorney-client privilege.
SADOW: Let's finish this up. And I'm going to go back to my question. Did you call it Roman number four, which is defense? Okay. In defense exhibit number four, Mr. Gillen went over with you your responses to certain interrogatories on May the 30th, 2023. Remember that?
WADE: Yes, sir.
SADOW: Not going back into those, the words in the interrogatories are already in evidence, so we're not going to do that. But the ones that we've got that we've gone into, there were two of them. And your answer to both of those was none. Correct?
WADE: Yes, sir.
SADOW: Okay. Now, on January 25th of 2024, --
WADE: Yes, Sir.
SADOW: -- 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?
WADE? Yes, sir.
SADOW: Okay. So, they are in defense exhibit number six, and they are interrogatories number four and number five.
WADE: Okay. Go ahead.
SADOW: No, I want you to be able to see it. So, it's a defense exhibit number six.
WADE I don't-
SADOW: I see you have six up there.
WADE: Yeah.
SADOW: I'm told that you have six.
WADE: Okay. Here we are.
[14:10:19]
SADOW: Okay. You would agree with me that in defense exhibit number six, and we're talking about interrogatories of January 25, 2024.
WADE: Yes, sir.
SADOW: 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?
WADE: Yes, sir.
SADOW: And your original response in defense exhibit number six was none. Correct?
WADE Yes, sir. SADOW: Your updated response was the plaintiff declines to respond to
this interrogatory and asserts his privilege pursuant to OCGA section 24-5-505. Correct?
WADE: Yes, sir.
SADOW: You know that 24-5-505 breaks down into two, two privileges, right?
WADE: Which is why I was specific. I said I asserted the privacy privilege.
SADOW: Well, that's what I'm asking you. In your updated response, there's no reference to privacy, correct?
WADE: Yes, there is. In the code section 24-5-505.
SADOW: Okay, but it also--
WADE: Refers to privacy.
SADOW: 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 parties or witness or which shall tend to bring infamy, disgrace, or public contempt upon such party or witness. You'd agree with that, right?
WADE: I'm not reading it.
SADOW: I'm sorry?
WADE: I'm not reading it. I don't have it in front of me.
UNKNOW: If I may. Mr. Sano, I can take judicial notice. That is what the rule says. If you want to ask him any follow-up questions.
SADOW: Okay, thank you. You are not claiming that your answer to number four in Raga 24 on January 25th, 2024 incriminates you, that is, as in Fifth Amendment privilege, right?
WADE: That's correct.
SADOW: You're claiming the second part, that it would bring infamy, disgrace, or public contempt, correct?
CROSS: I'm going to object to that. I don't think that's the full thing. And also, the witness doesn't have it in front of him, so I don't know how he's going to respond to that. He has said several times privacy is largely in focus at such times.
UNKNOWN: Overruled.
WADE: Claiming privacy.
SADOW: The privilege that you make reference to is to infamy, disgrace, or public contempt upon the witness, right? Or party. That's the section that you were relying on, correct?
WADE: That's what it says, yes, sir.
SADOW: I could show you, but I think the court has already indicated he can take judicial notice of the statute. So, assume that what I'm telling you is accurate, okay?
WADE: Yes, sir.
SADOW: Okay. How would an answer of, of none, bring infamy, disgrace, or public contempt upon you?
WADE: 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 just didn't want that.
SADOW: So, you raised a privilege, if I understand, that indicated that your answer would bring infamy, disgrace, or public contempt upon you, right?
CROSS: Your Honor, I'm going to object to the relevance of this and ask an answer several times.
UNKNOWN: Mr. Sadow, where are we heading with this?
SADOW: I think I can finish that up by saying, you didn't say none again. You asserted a privilege, correct?
WADE: That's correct.
SADOW: And you did the same thing, did you not, with number five?
WADE: That's correct.
SADOW: That is, you didn't say none again, right?
WADE: Correct.
SADOW: Is the answer to the interrogatory number four, if you have it in front of you, is the answer none? Is that the truth?
WADE: The answer is, to that interrogatory, is as I placed it at the time I responded, sir. That's the answer.
SADOW: I am asking you now is the answer to that interrogatory is none.
WADE: The answer is still privilege.
UNKNOWN: So, he's apparently electing to apply the same privilege, Mr. Sadow, to that exact same question.
SADOW: And I have a case which indicates that we can get beyond that if the court deems that appropriate.
UNKNOWN: And to what end? To what end?
SADOW: That the privilege actually does not apply and he must answer the question.
UNKNOWN: And where does that get us, even if he answers the question? Hasn't he already kind of said everything he has to say about the nature of the relationship. How long it lasted. When it ended --
[14:15:19]
SADOW: No, I think it would prove-- 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 then telling us what it is. That's what I believe, that's why I'm asking.
UNKNOWN: But the interrogator you're referring to, though the question contained there--
(CROSSTALK)
SADOW: -- two interrogatories, yes sir--
UNKNOWN: It's the entertaining one, it's whether there are other relationships, right?
SADOW: with the specific language that's in the interrogatories.
UNKNOWN: Sure, haven't you already covered that in all the other questions that we've had so far?
SADOW: We have, but again, the court could, if I could, require a compelling 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, what 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 honour makes. I have case law that says you can do that but it's your discretion.
UNKNOWN: Ms Cross?
CORSS: Your honour, Mr has been on the stand now for several hours, he's been asked and answered very personal questions that I believe cover the issues as Mr. Sadow is making his argument, and this is probably an argument to make for the -- later to the court and not a question to propound.
UNKNOWN: 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 why he answered a certain way. 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.
(CROSSTALK)
SADOW: So, all right, well just for the record the case that I was going to refer to is State versus Wakefield at 324 Georgia Appeal 587. And specifically, it would be 590 in which they talk about this specific privilege. This is a 2013 case and then a footnote to numbers, 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.
UNKNOWN: 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.
SADOW: Okay, based on that I have nothing else, thank you.
UNKNOWN: Okay, Mr. McCulloch, anything on behalf of Mr. Floyd moving through defense counsel? No, no, I'm looking behind you, Mr. McCulloch on behalf of Mr. Floyd, he's elbowing you, sir. Okay, um, Mr. Cromwell?
CROMWEL: Nothing your honour.
UNKNOWN: All right. Ms. Cross.
CROSS: Thank you. Mr. Wade, have you still got exhibit number 14 in front of you, one with all of the invoices?
WADE: I believe I have them all.
CROSS: 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?
WADE: Roughly, yes, ma'am.
CROSS: Okay, sometimes more, sometimes less?
WADE: yes, ma'am.
CROSS: All right. How about your time? I'm interested in the percentage of your time from, from November 2021 to let's say the close of the special purpose grand gala jury when it was dissolved in January 2023. You estimate for us the percentage of your time that was spent on Fulton County work versus other work.
WADE: Oh gosh, 99-1. 99% of the time here in this building, working on this case.
CROSS: All right, it was, as I understood your testimony, it was an intense period in terms of hours while that special purpose grand jury was meeting, correct?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
CROSS: And who was head or manager of the election integrity case during that time for the district attorney's office?
WADE: I was.
CROSS: You were coordinating the efforts?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
CROSS: And those efforts included not just the proceedings that were happening in this building, correct?
[14:20:09]
WADE: That's correct.
CROSS: You don't need to go all through it, but is your representation that 99.9% of the time that's restricted to 2022, 99% of your professional working time was devoted to this case?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
CROSS: And the remainder, whatever it was, was to some of your other cases that were ongoing?
WADE: Yes, ma'am. All right.
CROSS: 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?
WADE: I do.
CROSS: The financial affidavit that was filed in your divorce case in January 2022, you estimated your monthly income at that time was $14,000 a month, right?
WADE: In '22?
CROSS: January '22.
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
CROSS: January 23, what did that number come to?
WADE: 9,000.
CROSS: What about 2024?
WADE: I don't know.
CROSS: Is that there in front of you? That's not one of the ones that's there in front of you?
WADE: No, ma'am.
CROSS: All right. So as reflected in those financial affidavits, your income decreased as a result of your work in this case, correct?
WADE: Significantly.
CROSS: 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?
WADE: That's correct.
CROSS: All right. In the early part of 2022, there were three of you, you and Mr. Campbell and Mr. Bradley, you split expenses. Is that right?
WADE: That's correct.
CROSS: And you profit shared among yourselves, correct?
WADE: Correct.
CROSS: After Mr. Bradley left the firm, then there were just two of you, correct?
WADE: That is the cause of the significant change, yes, ma'am.
CROSS: So now you have two people bringing in income, correct?
WADE: Correct.
CROSS: And one of those people, you, is spending almost all of your time devoted to this election integrity case, correct?
WADE: Yes, ma'am. Correct.
CROSS: And your income from this election integrity case is less than what it was the year before?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
CROSS: We talked about the monthly caps, or we didn't talk about it, there was talk about the monthly cap that was included in your contracts indicating there was a certain threshold that you could reach, number of hours a month, and over that amount, you were not going to be compensated, correct?
WADE: That's correct.
CROSS: All right. And you kind of smiled when you said that. That's a little bittersweet there, isn't it? WADE: That's bitter - bitter.
CROSS: All right. Exhibit 14, is that still there in front of you?
WADE: It is.
CROSS: 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 nine.
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
CROSS: Is that there in front of you?
WADE: I have it.
CROSS: Invoice number nine, Mr. Wade, indicates that you performed hours of work that you were not compensated for because your cap had been reached?
WADE: YES, ma'am.
CROSS: I want you to take a look. And what did you do in those circumstances, when 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?
WADE: I was forced to lose that time. I didn't get paid for it.
CROSS: Okay. And that's what exhibit number nine shows?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
CROSS: All right. And in exhibit number nine, 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 bill the county for that time.
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
CROSS: All right. What about exhibit number, invoice number 13? Can you flip to that for me?
WADE: I have it.
CROSS: Is that a similar situation?
WADE: Yes, ma'am. It is.
CROSS: And what is it on exhibit number, I'm sorry, invoice number 13?
WADE: I don't know. I don't know. This invoice makes me cry. There's so many hours here that I worked that I couldn't get paid for.
CROSS: And you worked those hours anyway, Mr. Wade? 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 can 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.
CROSS: Can you look at invoice number 23 for me there in exhibit number 14?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
CROSS: Does that reflect a similar situation, the hours worked that you were not compensated for?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
CROSS: Invoice number 24 and 27. Can you take a look at those? And let us know if that reflects the same situation?
WADE: Are you trying to depress me looking at the money --
CROSS: No. Look at the money
WADE: It's the same, yes.
[14:25:29]
CROSS: Okay, and there's no work-around to that. You didn't attempt to work around that contractual cap on your hours?
WADE: Oh no, ma'am.
CROSS: All right. You were asked a lot of questions, Mr. Wade, about the affidavit that was submitted, correct? Do you recall those questions?
WADE: 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.
CROSS: Okay, all right, and there was no renegotiating your contract to reflect that those hours should be paid, right?
WADE: No, ma'am.
CROSS: Okay, all right. Do you have your affidavit there in front of you?
WADE: I do.
CROSS: The affidavit, of course, was attached to and provided in support of the state's response to Mr. Roman's motion, correct?
WADE: Yes, ma'am. CROSS: All right, and you prepared that affidavit?
WADE: I did.
CROSS: You signed that affidavit?
WADE: I did.
CROSS: All of the allegations and the representations in that affidavit are true, is that right, Mr. Wade?
WADE: Every one of them.
CROSS: 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.
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
CROSS: Can you read it out loud for me, please?
WADE: 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 purchasing plane tickets for she and I, with her personal funds, for our personal travel, are attached.
CROSS: Funds, Mr. Wade. As you understand the term funds, does that include cash?
WADE: Yes.
CROSS: Does that include credit?
WADE: Yes.
CROSS: Does that include reimbursements?
WADE: Yes.
CROSS: 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 by District Attorney Willis, correct?
WADE: That's correct.
CROSS: You had, I think your conversation with Ms. Merchant was, you produced the receipt that you had.
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
CROSS: Are you aware of any other receipts? Let me ask you this right now. I put you on the first step. Marcus, that states you're the number one. You testified, Mr. Wade, that District Attorney Willis purchased and funded the entire trip to Bayreuth (ph). That was her treat to you for her birthday?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
CROSS: And you testified that she purchased the plane tickets for you, correct?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
CROSS: And while you may not have had the 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 the District Attorney's--
UNKNOW: If this is going to go in there, then I'd like to look at it first. I've got a copy.
CROSS: Okay. Do you remember, Mr. Wade, approximately how much (inaudible). Do you remember how much the flight was for you, your flight to Bayreuth? And if you don't, I'm not tendering it for you, because 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. Does that refresh your recollection, Mr. Wade?
WADE: It does, thank you.
CROSS: Approximately how much was the amount of the ticket that District Attorney Willis purchased for your travel to Bayreuth?
WADE: $887.35.
CROSS: And I'm not tendering it, Your Honor, but I will leave it with the court reporter for reference.
All right, Mr. Wade. 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.
