Return to Transcripts main page
CNN News Central
Hearing Underway On Motions To Disqualify Fani Willis In Trump Case; Fulton County DA Fani Willis To Testify. Aired 2:30-3p ET
Aired February 15, 2024 - 14:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[14:30:00]
ANNA GREEN CROSS, ATTORNEY FOR FULTON COUNTY, GA: 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.
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?
NATHAN WADE, SPECIAL PROSECUTOR IN TRUMP'S GA ELECTION INTERFERENCE CASE: Yes, ma'am.
CROSS: And that March date isn't included in the affidavit. The affidavit is less specific. But that was your testimony today?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
CROSS: And that there was no personal or dating relationship prior to that time, right?
WADE: No.
CROSS: It's a way. I'm sorry.
I'm going to direct your attention to 2020. In 2020, were you dating the district attorney?
WADE: No.
CROSS: 2020, that was during the Covid pandemic, correct?
WADE: It was.
CROSS: Was there a situation for you, Mr. Wade, that made you particularly vulnerable during the Covid period?
WADE: Yes, ma'am. And in 2020 and a portion of '21, I was battling cancer and that prevented me from pretty much leaving -- leaving environments that are sterile. And I just -- I had health on my mind.
CROSS: You were particularly cautious during that time?
WADE: Yes, ma'am. CROSS: Were you dating anyone in 2020?
WADE: No, ma'am.
CROSS: Thank you, Mr. Wade.
That's all I have.
JUDGE SCOTT MCAFEE, FULTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT: Merchant cross on those points only.
ASHLEY MERCHANT, ATTORNEY FOR MICHAEL ROMAN: 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've started working for Fulton County, correct?
WADE: Well, I did say that. But what we're talking about is, because this now at this point, the splitting of the financial obligations in firm, now there are two people carrying the weight of three. So that would scale back on the amount of income, right? Amount of practice.
MERCHANT: Well, you're splitting the profits, 50/50 though, instead of one-third, correct?
WADE: The profits, yes.
MERCHANT: So -- but you did testify that you making you're making significantly less now -- we heard about it for a few minutes -- significantly less now that you worked for Fulton County, right?
WADE: Yes.
MERCHANT: OK. Would you agree with me that $236,000 is more than $184,000?
WADE: Absolutely.
MERCHANT: Would you agree with me that $262,000 is more than $236,000?
WADE: Absolutely.
MERCHANT: All of these years, despite you saying that you were a three-way partner with Wade and Campbell and Bradley, and now to Wade and Campbell, all of your corporate tax returns are filed in the law firm of Nathan Wade, correct?
WADE: My returns, yes, ma'am.
MERCHANT: Yes. For your law firm?
WADE: Former law firm, because I also have personal returns.
MERCHANT: Right. I'm not talking about your personal returns. I'm talking about your business returns. WADE: Yes, but -- but the question contemplates that my -- my bring-
home money is more or less. So I want to be clear that it is reflected in my personal returns.
MERCHANT: I didn't ask you anything about bring-home money though. I'm not sure what you're talking about.
WADE: What I'm talking about is, your question was the portion of my testimony dealing with earnings significantly less money.
MERCHANT: No. My question is, during -- and let me 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 Wade only, correct?
WADE: I filed personal and business. Yes, ma'am.
MERCHANT: 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?
WADE: I said there's a different return for that Wade, Bradley, Campbell entity.
MERCHANT: And I'm not asking about that. What I'm asking about is, during the years 2019, 2020, 2021 and2022, you filed a business return for the law firm of Nathan Wade?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
MERCHANT: And in 2019, you said that the law firm of Nathan Wade made $140,000 --$184,000, correct?
WADE: I don't know.
MERCHANT: Is that -- is that something -- does that sound about like about what you made in 2019 and reported on your taxes as a business law firm?
WADE: If that's what's on the return, yes, ma'am. You're right.
MERCHANT: And I'm happy I can bring those up. I've got one copy. I'm not letting all right.
May approach, Judge?
MCAFEE: Yes.
MERCHANT: Thank you.
So in 2019, gross profit for the law firm of Nathan Wade is $184,000, correct?
[14:35:00]
WADE: Let's see. MERCHANT: The second line, number two.
WADE: Yes, ma'am. $184,000, $184,000, yes, ma'am.
MERCHANT: And then in 2020, you also filed Nathan Wade, attorney at law, and your firm's profit was $230,000, correct?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
MERCHANT: In 2021, you also filed as a solo Nathan Wade, P.C., attorney, a larger first profit was $236,000, correct?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
MERCHANT: And then in 2022, you filed as a solo practitioner attorney, Nathan Wade, and your gross income was $262,000, correct?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
MERCHANT: I'm not going into business here.
But nowhere in these documents, you document that you received cash payments from Ms. Willis, correct?
WADE: I don't -- I haven't looked through them. I'd be surprised if -- if there were something in it said that.
MERCHANT: Do you want to look?
WADE: Listen for the answer.
I'd be shocked if there was something in there that said that I received some cash from Ms. Willis.
MERCHANT: But there is itemized expenditures for travel in here. You did itemize that?
WADE: I didn't itemize anything. My --
MERCHANT: Your accountant itemized it.
WADE: I hope so.
MERCHANT: But you're responsible for your taxes, even if your accountant files them, right?
WADE: I agree.
MERCHANT: And so you itemized your expenses for travel but you did not itemize -- you didn't put anything in there about you being reimbursed for half of that travel.
WADE: Well, those are -- those are business returns?
MERCHANT: Yes. You used your business card to pay for the travel, right? WADE: But -- but I wouldn't put a personal expense on a business
return so --
MERCHANT: But you used the business card to pay for these --
WADE: I used a --
(CROSSTALK)
WADE: I use a business card to pay for everything. And what I do is turn over the statement to the accountant. The accountant then says, OK, this experience, that's personal, we'll put that over here. This expense, that's business. We'll put that over here.
And they reconcile it. And so you wouldn't find a reimbursement from Ms. Willis on a business return.
MERCHANT: OK. So they're not anywhere there?
WADE: Nor would you find -- well, go ahead.
MERCHANT: I'm just asking. So there's no there's nowhere for any of that cash to be reconciled, right?
WADE: On the business returns? No, ma'am.
MERCHANT: OK.
We talked a lot about the financial affidavits. I know the state asked you a couple of questions about them.
You filed one in 2022, and in that one, you stated that you only have $5,000 in cash, correct?
WADE: I believe you --
(CROSSTALK)
MERCHANT: That was sworn under oath?
WADE: At the time of the filing, yes, ma'am.
MERCHANT: OK.
And then in January of 2024, you filed another one that also swore that you only have $5,000 in cash, correct?
WADE: At the time of the filing, yes, ma'am.
MERCHANT: OK.
So in 2020 AND 2024, you only had $5,000 in cash at that time?
WADE: At that time, yes, ma'am.
MERCHANT: OK. Then you also -- all of those interrogatories -- I'm not going to go through them in painstaking detail.
But every single interrogatory you filed, the 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.
Plaintiff rarely carries cash. If plaintiffs does carry cash, it's the nominal amount, correct?
WADE: That's correct.
MERCHANT: OK.
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?
WADE: So you're assuming that I received the cash and I stored it? I received the cash and I saved it.
(CROSSTALK)
WADE: What's wrong with receiving the cash, Ms. Merchant, and spending it?
MERCHANT: Nothing's wrong with it. So you didn't --
(CROSSTALK)
WADE: That would contemplate, while the response is what it is, I mean, on the interrogatories.
MERCHANT: That you spent the cash. That's because before, when it was asked, you said you didn't want to disclose where the cash was?
WADE: No, no, no, no.
(CROSSTALK)
WADE: No privacy reasons. No. Well, I said that if I were to store cash in my home, then why would I share that with the world, is what I said. I didn't say that I had some cash stored up in some place because that's not the truth.
MERCHANT: And you've talked a lot about this, I've 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 that 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?
WADE: All of them, with the exception of the checks that were going into the WBC firm went into my business bank account, which is solely in mind my name. I --
MERCHANT: Right. Your -- your WBC account that you're talking about, that account was closed though in June of 2022?
WADE: Correct. So I went --
MERCHANT: After June of 2022 was put in a Nathan Wade bank account, not a corporate bank account with (INAUDIBLE).
MCAFEE: I think the question right before that only needed to be yes or no, so.
[14:40:01]
WADE: So, no, ma'am. The checks were deposited into firm accounts, law firm accounts.
MERCHANT: Law firm of Nathan Wade, P.C.?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
MERCHANT: As a solo practitioner?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
MERCHANT: OK. So they were not deposited into accounts with Campbell or Bradley?
WADE: No, ma'am. They were not.
MERCHANT: Thank you.
WADE: However, there were checks written to Campbell and Bradley that will reflect the third, the third, the third.
MERCHANT: And we've tried to get those bank records, but you've objected to those, correct?
WADE: You've tried to get what bank records?
MERCHANT: We subpoenaed bank records and you've objected to all of those, right?
CROSS: Your Honor, I'm going to object to the relevance.
MERCHANT: 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 -- if there's a law that says you can make an inference if some documents or within the party's control and they won't provide them, there's an inference that they're not positive.
MCAFEE: That's correct.
CROSS: Your Honor, there is no obligation for Mr. Wade to produce evidence that Ms. Merchant couldn't find in a (INAUDIBLE) way. I believe it's irrelevant. We've covered the ground. And I object to the questioning.
MCAFEE: All right, sustained.
Ms. Merchant, let's find some new ground here.
MERCHANT: OK. Thank you.
Are you willing to waive your privilege with Mr. Bradley so that he can testify?
WADE: I'm not willing to waive attorney-client privilege.
MERCHANT: All right.
Thank you.
STEVE SADOW, DONALD TRUMP'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: When we, on question (INAUDIBLE).
I don't want to get into the type of cancer. I want to get into the medical condition itself. Did I understand you have to say that you had cancer in the year 2020?
WADE: Yes, sir.
SADOW: You claim that because of that in 2020, you were -- kept yourself in a sterile environment?
WADE: I tried, yes, sir.
SADOW: Now, what about 2021?
WADE: 2021, just focusing on my health, trying to get back to myself.
SADOW: Remember, I asked you two questions about Hape Ville?
WADE: Yes, sir.
SADOW: The condo?
WADE: Yes, sir.
SADOW: You indicated that prior to November 1st of 2021, you had spent time at the condo, the Hape Ville condo.
WADE: Yes, sir.
SADOW: With Ms. Willis, right?
WADE: Yes, sir.
SADOW: And with someone else, you said Ms. Ruraity (ph)?
WADE: Ms. Ruraity (ph), yes, sir.
SADOW: OK. You were not concerned -- that was not a sterile environment, was it?
WADE: Are you inferring that Ms. Ruraity (ph) and Ms. Willis is not sterile? Of course, it's a sterile environment. It's a condo.
SADOW: But don't you remember that I followed up and said, where else might you have been to show your cell phone records from Hape Ville, and you said the airport, right?
Not a sterile environment though, the airport, you agree?
WADE: It is not.
SADOW: OK. What about restaurants? Not a sterile environment, right?
WADE: They're not.
SADOW: And the Porshe, you said something about a Porsche, what?
WADE: The Porshe experience.
SADOW: That doesn't sound very sterile to me. Is that a sterile environment?
WADE: Well, you're inside your vehicle.
SADOW: Yes. But don't you -- maybe with others?
WADE: You can.
SADOW: Yes. And you were doing all that in 2021 before November 1st, that's what you testified to, correct?
WADE: Yes, sir.
SADOW: There's no reason why you couldn't be dating in 2021, is there?
WADE: In 2020, Mr. Sadow.
SADOW: 2021.
Correct?
WADE: Dating, no.
(CROSSTALK)
WADE: No, no worries.
SADOW: No reason?
WADE: No reason.
SADOW: Thank you.
Mr. Gillen?
(CROSSTALK)
MCAFEE: OK.
Mr. Stocks?
ALLYN STOCKTON, RUDY GIULIANI'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Stockton.
MCAFEE: Stockton -- excuse me.
STOCKTON: Just real briefly, you say you started dating in early 2022, so use the term personal relationship, and there was no dating, no personal relationship prior to early '22. Is that correct?
WADE: Help me understand. I want to make sure I answer you. So -- so let's -- let's be clear, 2022 was the start of any intimate sexual relationship with the district attorney.
STOCKTON: OK. And that's what I was wanting to --
WADE: OK.
STOCKTON: -- clear.
In your affidavit, you used the term personal relationship.
WADE: Got it.
STOCKTON: You used the term vague. And your testimony today is that that includes the terms basically physical or sexual or intimate relationships, that correct?
WADE: Yes, sir.
STOCKTON: And there was nothing, according to your testimony, there was none of that prior to 2022?
WADE: That is correct.
STOCKTON: That's all I have.
MCAFEE: All right, not seeing anyone else, Ms. Cross for the redirect.
[14:45:02]
All right. Mr. Wade can be excused.
CROSS: (INAUDIBLE) -- might need him back afterwards.
MCAFEE: All right. You may step down, Mr. Wade. Please don't discuss your testimony with the other witnesses.
WADE: She mentioned subpoenas, Judge. Let me just say this. That was an inference made that I was somehow evading service, another subpoena.
MCAFEE: You can take that up. I don't think we need to have it on the record here.
You may step down.
WADE: Thank you.
All right. Ms. Merchant, any other witnesses?
MERCHANT: Yes. I would call Fani Willis.
MCAFEE: All right. Ms. Cross?
CROSS: Your Honor, I am going to adapt and remove for the motions (INAUDIBLE) district attorney there's been now. There's lots of testimony from Mr. Wade. I don't believe that there can be a showing for the need for the district attorney to testify as well for all of the reasons that were cited in the states motion to quash initially.
Tremendously high-burden while opposing counsel, I don't believe it's the met particularly given the cumulative nature that would be the subject of personal detail. That is the way it's not testify.
MCAFEE: All right, Ms. Merchant, why -- what do you think you can establish and have through the testimony of Ms. Willis and -- let me stop there.
MERCHANT: Conflict in the (INAUDIBLE). Now that Mr. Wade has testified, there's a conflict in multiple different things. On the first one is the reimbursement issue on the cash. That is an alarm in and of itself. S that's the goal of testifying.
MCAFEE: Well, what's -- what's the conflict there?
MERCHANT: He testified that he didn't have receipts but we don't know who's willing. So that is an issue
MCAFEE: So we don't -- we don't know. So there's no conflict. Just don't know.
(CROSSTALK)
MCAFEE: So it's a question, not a conflict. But what -- what else - what else?
MERCHANT: I have a question. And there's a lot of different issues, reasons. The first one would be the receipts, whether or not these cash payments
The Belize trip, whether or not she paid for the entire thing in cash? Mr. Wade doesn't have knowledge of that.
Remember, a lot of things he couldn't remember. So now it goes to (INAUDIBLE).
It's unfortunate that he testified that she insists on paying her way, gave him some cash, there's the boat, gave him some cash. Miami trip, booked it abroad. It would balance out. A couple of 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. But he was very vague about that.
And even the best friends testified that it happened in 2019. Now, Mr. Wade has testified that the relationship began to become romantic, and 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 she filed her 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 and (INAUDIBLE). There were challenges we have a right to.
MCAFEE: 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 it on the record.
So that's -- that's what I'd like to go through.
Ms. Cross?
CROSS: I think you've identified misfortune, hasn't -- hasn't advised inconsistencies, identified areas of inquiry.
The testimony in the record from Mr. Wade is not inconsistent. It's unrebutted.
And I don't believe given the testimony of Mr. Wade and that 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 spread all the pleadings at it really is such a compelling need is the language of the case bought, a compelling need to call a person counsel, given the record that's now before them. I don't believe.
CRAIG GILLEN, DAVID SHAFER'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Your Honor, I was going, very briefly. Willis leads to testify. Her best friend or good friend as directly contradicted the declaration made by Mr. Wade attached to the government's response.
And it wasn't just the declaration of Mr. Wade was filed by the district attorney by and through her assistants. She owns that.
[14:50:13]
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 if she wants to tell us about the first time you've heard about the cash. Oh, yes, we got cash. I don't have any deposit slips. Don't have a record of it.
Maybe Ms. Willis can say, here, all my records, right? Paid $10,000 in cash. That to Mr. Wade. We need to know that.
Also this -- Ms. Willis' 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 prohibited sources, which Mr. Wade clearly is the 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 they total up to around $10,000 in cash.
Yet, on the financial declaration for 2021, which was filed in April 2022, and the financial declaration up for 2022, which was filed in April 2023, there is no listing of any gifts whatsoever over -- over $100 from a prohibited source. It cries out for her testimony.
She needs to be able to get up here and say, why didn't you tell on the disclosure form so that people will know of the nature of the relationship between prohibited sources and the public official, in this case, the district attorney.
Who happens to then make a decision to hire someone and ends up being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for his firm. 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 let's -- obviously, we are advocates on our position.
But that explanation of cash does not pass the smell test or the straight face test. She needs to go on the record. She filed this motion with his declaration. We've seen what happened two or three more sentences.
We need to have the full picture as we've gotten through Mr. Wade of his false interrogatory. It's serious business for a lawyer, for anybody. And then, suddenly, he's changing.
She files her financial declarations. Same problems. We need to go here to go over all of this and to explain exactly what happened.
We ask the court that the court allow Mr. Willis to be called interrogated on the stand.
FANI WILLIS, FULTON COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: I'm ready to go, Your Honor. MCAFEE: Just a moment, Ms. Willis.
So, Ms. Cross, I don't know if you want to speak with Ms. Willis outside, maybe they're withdrawing.
CROSS: (INAUDIBLE)
MCAFEE: Do you have any objection to the motion?
CROSS: And even motion to --
MCAFEE: Or does Ms. Willis want to take the lead here?
CROSS: A motion to quash based and take on.
MCAFEE: OK.
So the position of the district attorney at this point is that she's no longer contesting the subpoena.
Mr. Merchant can call her next witness.
WILLIS: I would ask I need three documents in front of me. The three filings of Ms. Merchant
MERCHANT: Refiling.
WILLIS: Does anyone have the three filings of Ms. Merchant? Does the court have the three filings of Ms. Merchant?
MCAFEE: When you say the filings, you mean the pleadings?
WILLIS: The pleadings. Yes, Your Honor.
MCAFEE: OK. I think we can locate those for you. (INAUDIBLE).
WILLIS: I want the one filed on January the eighth. One filed immediately after we filed ours. And the final one.
MERCHANT: If you want to take a break to get them, I can make a copy. I think we have one.
MCAFEE: Yes, the only copy I have is going to have my notes on it. So if we don't have a clean copy.
(CROSSTALK)
MCAFEE: Let's take a five-minute break.
(CROSSTALK)
[14:55:00]
MCAFEE: All right.
WILLIS: I'll sit here. BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: High drama in the courthouse in Fulton
County, Georgia.
As there was a debate between the prosecution and the defense in Donald Trump's election subversion case in Fulton County over whether D.A. Fani Willis should testify about allegations of a conflict of interests that the defense team for Donald Trump and his cohort of co- defendants are making about the D.A. in an intense debate.
Ultimately, Judge Scott McAfee not even having to weigh in on the decision because, to the apparent shock of folks in the courtroom, the district attorneys stood up, the camera panned to her, and she said, quote, "I'm ready to go."
The prosecution waved their objection to her testifying, and now we're watching those moments again now. Now we're expecting that she is going to testify after a five-minute break.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: That's right. She was asking for the filings of Ashleigh Merchant, the attorney who has been doing so much of the questioning.
And people have copies, but they've written notes on them. So that's not going to do the trick.
They need to get her clean copies of this, Laura Coates.
But it seems like what are going to be drilling down here, drilling down on here, and there's a lot of things, but in particular, having to do with her cash reimbursements.
And most significantly, the timeline of the relationship because a former employee and friends and in the district attorney's office, Robin Yurty (ph) had earlier said that she believed, without a doubt, that the relationship had started in 2019.
And we just heard testimony from Nathan Wade. He said 2022..
LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: First of all, this is a stunning, an extraordinary moment.
We're about to have the D.A. for Fulton County, the one who is bringing RICO charges for more than a dozen, including the former president of the United States, who has an active RICO charge right now in case involving a huge case out here in Georgia, getting ready to take the stand and actually sat down on the stand.
And why? Because she is going to be testifying about the nature of her relationship with one of the lead prosecutors, Nathan Wade, the timing of it.
Whether she personally, financially benefited from that existing relationship, whether there is a conflict of interests, according to Georgia ethical obligations and laws, that would require her to be disqualified. And not just her, but her entire team, which would then put this case
on a very different trajectory to maybe not be tried before the election, if at all, Brianna, this is an extraordinary moment.
And of course, I'm here with Nick Valencia right now on this very important issue.
Nick, the fact that she is testifying, first of all, my mind a little bit blown because she is getting ready to expose herself for a number of reasons. There are many reasons to never want to take the stand.
She will now have to answer questions about private matters in front of a potential jury pool, dare I say the world. And it's all about whether should be disqualified.
NICK VALENCIA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: This is mortifying. This has many an absolutely mortifying day for the Fulton County district attorney's office.
Consider this. This is an investigation that's been three years in the making. She essentially started this as soon as she took this job.
She had indictments leveled against the former president. She had 18 co-defendants at one point. Everyone processed through the Ritz on Rice Street, the Fulton County jail. We saw President Trump come through here.
We see legal analysts say what a strong case she has. Instead, we're not talking about the fake elector scheme to subvert the Electoral College.
We're not talking about the infamous phone call where Trump called the secretary of state here, Brad Raffensberger, and said, find me 11,000 more votes.
We are not talking about the illegal accessing of voting data in rural Coffee County.
Instead, what are we talking about? We're talking about a relationship which -- what appears to be two consenting adults.
But it also appears though that they may have some credibility issues. The defense attorneys are drilling down on this.
Did they mischaracterize or contradict themselves in these sworn, legal written briefs that they handed over to the court? That is something that has been a focus today.
We knew that the presiding judge, Scott McAfee, was very, very interested in whether or not she personally benefited from this personal relationship.
Now though, it seems that credibility is an issue here today, Laura.
COATES: No prosecutor wants their credibility in question, getting ready to plan a case of this magnitude. [14:59:42]
We've got to go to a quick break here. We'll come right back. Fani Willis will be on the stand.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
