Transcripts For CSPAN State 20240704

No. Ok. Then can i reserve what i have . Sure. Thats fine. Thank you. Lets take a quick five and we will be back at 2 40ish. Thank you. [indiscernible] all right. We are back on the record. Are you ready . Yes. Im trying to get to where i can share my screen. We need to add you as a host then. 01 in which defense counsel claime evidence would show. I would strongly bring to the courts attention that the claims that were made were material misrepresentations. What i will say to the court, and why i say that to the court, is because the representations that were made by counsel was that all of these people would be called and mr. Bradley would be able to impeach their knowledge by singing that he specifically, in his presence or to him, said that ms. Willis and mr. Wade were in a romantic ship and that ms. Willis and mr. Wade were cohabitating. That they all knew that. I would submit to the court, 3ne t hear from any of those individuals. Mr. Bradley impeached no one. I say no one because he did not impeach mr. Wade. In order toc you call the witness. When mr. Wade was on the stand, not once was he asked, did you tell mr. Bradley this . Confidential conversation, in your conference room. That was not covered under attorneyclient privilege. That was not asked. The specifics of that conversation was not asked. Any testimony that mr. Bradley testified to is impermissible. Its improper impeachment. They did not confront mr. Wade with it. So thats where the state would begin with the comments that mr. Merchant made about me referencing his life as lying. I never called those words. I dont know why she made the material misrepresentation. It baby it could beed to her. I can submit to the court that those were material misrepresentations that were made to this court a few mondays ago, as everyone was arguing. I would bring to the courts temotion for certain subpoenas, mysterious attorney appears. He made very zoom, monsieur it he had no knowledge of a romantic relationship and absolutely no knowledge of cotathose are the specific references that he made. So what i would submit to the court is, those are considered adopted admissions. That his client has made based on the statements he made because of the representations she made to him. I know that sounds convoluted. What i would say to the court is, mr. Partridge told the court that she had absolutely no information about a romantic relationship and she had no information in regards to are you making the argument i should be based make inferences . Shes communicating with mr. Partridge about what her upcoming testimony is. Thats why she hired him. Should i infer things based on her communications to him . Absolutely. They are not attorneyclient communications anymore when he discloses them to the court and everybody else as they watch the zo■yom and attend the hearing. The differences, there was no request to go on camera. There was no request to attack a private conversation with you as was done with mr. Bradley. That would have been the proper procedure. Yes, im asking you to infer that. At best inconsistent. The testimony of missy already when she testified was vague. Very little description. When asked in a very leading manner, is it true or do you know that miss willis and mr. Wade were in a relationship from 2019 into the time you were fired forced to resign from the District Attorneys Office in march of 22. She said yes. S its absurd. Its absolutely absurd. When she was asked why she believed they were in a romantic relationship based on her observations, she said something, he asked her about kissing or hugging. She said yes. There was no description or qualification about when it occurred, what she actually saw. Was it a kiss on the cheek . Things of that nature. I would ask you to frame her testimony from that standpoint when you are addressing her ■ xcredibility, as the court wl do with every witness that you heard during the testimony of all the witnesses during the hearings. Let me see if my screen will share. Now i want to talk a little bit about the standards and the burdens here in this instance as it relates to defense counsel and the claims that theyve made as the motion to disqualify. I was doing a lot of research. That goes along with the standard. What the state would submit to the court is that the defense has to show an actual conflict. They have to show the actual conflict, that ms. Willis received a financial benefit or gain and did it, got it based upon the outcome of the case. It doesnt make any sense. It makes absently no sense. During the three days of the extensive testimony of all of the witnesses and the prolonged examination of the witnesses by multiple defense counsels, they still got nowhere. We are in the same position we were in on monday. The same assertions that were made on monday have no answers today. They were not able to provide any evidence to the contrary there is no evidence that contradicts that the relationship did not begin later than around march 2022. The research and or the request d. Theres no evidence that the defendant in this case, their Due Process Rights have been harmed and absolutely anyway. There is zero evidence, not a single shred of evidence was deduced through any of the exhibits or the witness testimony showing that their Constitutional Rights were at all affected by the relationship of 2022. Because of that, the motion to disqualify should be denied as t attorney of Fulton County and mr. Wade as the special prosecutor assigned to the case should be allowed to remain on this case and continue to prosecute the case until the end, until the trial is set by the court to begin. Now the issue is obviously coming of heard a lot from the defense counsel as to what the issues are for are to be determined. Here, it would be the states contention that you must find theres an actual conflict if you were or are to come to the conclusion that you should disqualify ms. Willis and the are you talking about mrs. Ventura . In that case, it talks about the standard of proof that the defense must go to show an actual conflict. They say the High Standard of proof proof which is not a preponderance of the evidence, which is a much lower burden for any party who is trying to meet that standard of preponderance. Its very clear that the standard is a High Standard of proof. For both when determining whether there is an actual conflict and when theres forensic ms. Conflict thats found. I want to go through some of the cases that defense counsel has referenced. They argued here today and in their filings. I guess the bright line standard or the standard and the grounds for which disqualification is appropriate for your honor to be determining in all the cases as it relates to disqualifying the elected District Attorney thatt of interest or that theres been some sort of friend is forensic mix conduct. Those are the two areas that your honor, that is in your purview when you are looking to resolve an issue regarding disqualification. In a recent case, lee v state. February of 2024. Here out of our appellate courts. Case, the justice wrote that a trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to disqualify aattorney absent an l conflict of interest. Thats the case that was rule on by the Georgia Court of appeals about a month ago, your honor. Now the cases in which the counsel has relied on in their briefs and here today, i would submit to the court that the sites are misleading. ■ inequitable. Some of them actually support the states position. What i would say to you is that the defendants in many instances combine language from the multiple cases. What i would say is mistake the law as it relates to what the law, what is required in order for an elected District Attorney and their office to be disqualified. What i would submit to the court is u go back to that. Show me how. Show you how . The first one you cited was battle versus the state. Certainly a conflict of interest or an appearance of impropriety could be the grounds of disqualification. You remember, a number of these cases rely on the appearance of impropriety. They acknowledge that there is some ambiguity here. H gets cited to venter and we have this quote. They acknowledge the ambiguity. Why i would submit that to the court is that in all of those cases, they do reference the appearance of an impropriety. They reference that because they also find theres an actual conflict in each one of those cases. Your position would be your review of the law. Yes. Thats what im saying. In those cases, they reference s an appearance of impropriety and they reference that fact because when you have an actual conflict , theres always an appearance of impropriety. Those are what the cases stand for. I guess thats the main example of what i referenced as, they combined the language from separate and d cases and tell you that the standard is an appearance of impropriety. I would submit thats not the standard. In my first reading, i did notice that the case each reference the appearance of impropriety but also that that appearance arose from the fact that the court found an actual conflict in each one of those cases. I wont belabor the point in going through all the cases the defense cited. What i would submit to the court is that i found that they fell into five categories. Some that didnt concern disqualification at all. Some that determined we were about to voided loyalty. A conflict that arises from representing becoming a prosecutor and then having xm■ . ■c■e he mustmes that he had no personal firsthand knowledge as it relates to the relationship between ms. Willis and mr. Wade. More importantly, being pressed by counsel, he could not pinpoint a time in which he knew that the relationship occurred. There were many instances in which he described that very well could have fallen within the timeframe that was testified. As it relates to the written relationship transitioning into dating and into the end of the , the summer of 2023. As i referenced to the court, the statements that mr. Bradley inadmissible hearsay as it relates to the statements that he was pressed and asked about what mr. Wade told him. Mr. Wade was never confronted with those statements. In order for impeachment to be proper, he must be confronted with a specific statement in order to impeach him. Again, mr. Bradley had every motive to lie. I believe the Text Messages are clear, very clear as it relates to his disdain towards mr. Wade. Due to the fact that he was expelled or exiled from a thriving law practice and it was clear that the practice and mr. Wade sided with the alleged victim. Its clear he assaulted her due to the fact that he paid her off. And as i referenced earlier, ms. Merchant represented to the court that mr. Bradley had personal firsthand knowledge basically of it all, of everything. And that he would be able to basically be an impeaching machine. Youre on a him as the star witness when you were made by m. Cross in relation to miss merchans represcourt. What i would summit to the court is that all mr. Bradleys representations of it relates to when the relationship between miss willis and mr. Wade began and whether they cohabitated. That was a promise that was also made, that he would be able to impeach the investigators as it relates to cohabitation. It was speculation, gossip, innuendo. The impression i got is that mr. Bradley directly overheard a statement from each of these individuals that they could be impeached with. Is that accurate . Directly overheard they actually seem to be all of them could all be directly impeached by statements overheard by mr. Bradley. Yes. In reference to your question, the answer was yes. Messages, i would submit to the court that the Text Messages dont even say or incas represen relation to the good faith basis as it relates to the testimony of and ability to impeach witnesses through mr. Bradley. What has been referenced by all counsel is mr. Bradleys assertion of, absolutely, as it relates to whether the relationship existed prior to mr. Wades hiring. The question in itself involves speculation. It asks, do you think it started before he hired him . He said absolutely. He doesnt provide any context as to how he knows. Intestimony with the court, is the source of of his information■yas unclear. Thats what i would say to the court. As to a lot of things, other than the one conversation that allegedly occurred between mr. Wade and mr. Bradley. I would submit to the court that that conversation never occurred. That would be the states contention. How do we know that . We know that because that conversation was not confronted, wister mr. Wade was not confronted with that conversation. That is circumstantial evidence. I would even say direct as to that conversation not existing. Based on the rre counsel, it wod be clear that that would be a conversation that would have been relayed to. It wasnt privileged, as your honor found. If that conversation happened, you Better Believe that would have been a conversation that defee counsel wouldve confronted mr. Wade with and against. The reason they didnt do that was because it didnt exist. Again, you heard from mr. Johns , the District Attorneys father. As your honor heard, he was a well respected member of the Legal Community for over 40 years. But the importance of his testimony was to provide the court corroboration as it relates to the years leading up to the relationship that transitioned into dating between the District Attorney and mr. Wade. What he testified to was that he moved into her south fulton home in 20. The evidence of his moving into that home at that time was his georgia drivers license. Official government document. He further testified that not only was it just ms. Himself livh fulton home, but that he often would see on numerous occasions the significant other of ms. Willis that was not mr. Wade. He referenced that person had a nickname of dos and that he kept a lot of his belongings in the garage of ms. Willis. He specifically said he kept a lot of his distraught he equipment disc jockey equipment. Thats how he referred to it. He wade at the south fulton home. Thats owned by ms. Willis. He make made clear that he lived in that home with ms. Willis and ms. Willis alone, other than her two daughters who wouldve asian eliteally visit. After february of 2021. What precipitated the move of ms. Willis to what i would reference as a safe house for her protection was a protest that occurred before her home in february of 2021. He then expressed to the court that ms. Willis moved in the spring of 2021. Due to the threats that were taking taken very seriously, he had only seen his child 13 times. He said, in reference to the question by defense counsel that im going to be straight up with the court. They were trying to make ms. Willis a liar is how i would submit to the court. In the sense that she testified that she was concerned for her safety and her familys safety which included herand that mr. N that home rebutted all of that. But he testified that he stayed in the home because it was the home that she put her blood, sweat, tears and and was able to buy. He stayed in the home because there was constant officer presence. He told the court that he thout extra security equipment. He reported that he slept in different rooms on different nights because he felt his safety was in such a concern. So i would submit to the court that lap that that line of questioning was done in an attempt to discredit ms. Willis. But it failed. How the state would characterize it. Then he testified about the first timet wade, in 2023 here e District Attorneys Office. He talked about how he kept cash in his home and why ms. Willis kept cash in his home. What the court should■ take note of is that the state didnt ask mr. Floyd about the cash in his home. That came out through the crossexamination of the defense counsel. So it was the implication floyds preparation with the state and his hearing and seeing news articles and clips related to the testimony that occurred prior to him but i would submit to the court that its tellg that that information came out through questions that were asked by the defense counsel, which gives credibility to the statements that werehe fy he taught his daughter to keep cash in the home as it relates to Financial Independence and having a safety net. It was further testified that he had multiple safes and that he gave ms. Willis his first lockbox her first lockbox for situations, as she described when she was testifying. What i want to make clear is that during this williss testimony, it was stressed about the cash and where she kept it, did it follow her where she laid her head and things of that nature, trying to further discredit the practice that she had as it relates to keeping cash in her home and why she didnt have the ability to pay cash to mr. Wade and other peoplend further situations. And what the court should take note of is that there was no evidence that controverted that at all. Where was the evidence that controverted ms. Williss claim and practice of keeping cash in her home . There was none. In fact, the only evidence was that it was substantiated through the testimony of her father mr. Floyd. ■xfurthermore, you heard from former governor roy barnes and his testimony was significant and important. Because how i would phrase it on this point, you mightve had a more recent opportunity to review than i have. You said she was the first choice to lead the prosecution. Was that his testimony or was his testimony that he was asked to come aboard . Did he use the words that he was asked to lead . Yeah. That was my recollection. That he was asked to leave the prosecution. He was asked to fill the position that mr. Wade is currently in, the lead prosecutor. It was said in that way as well as it relates to the testimony of mr. Barnes. I think its very clear. I can submit to the court that i know that he also said that he was asked to fill the position that mr. Wade is currently filling for the state of georgia. Special grand jury prosecutor, right . Yeah. I guess, leading the investigation which led to the here for today. He also indicated that the reason that he turned the job down was because it didnt pay his law firm. And that he also didnt want to live the rest of his life like that. Furthermore, he confirmed the qualifications of mr. Wade. Which i still find quite interesting and confusing, as to attacking mr. Wades qualifications. Its almost as if mr. Romans counsel is asking that the state put a prosecutor on the case that he sees to be more qualified to attempt to convict her client. Its an interesting argument. Its one that makes no sense. Furthermore, if you were to believe the claims and h allegations as it relates to. Williss personal stake in the prosecution, the receiving of financial benefits and gains, you would have to believe that she was also dating roy barnes, the former governor and gabe banks in additn to m scheme in order to profit off thats what they are saying. Or they are saying that she telepathically or pat able to ks and mr. Banks were turned on the position so she could then higher mr. Wade. Its ridiculous. Its absurd. Its desperate. Its a desperate attempt to remove a prosecutor from a case for absolutely no reason. Other than harassment and embarrassment. Weve been through a lot of the testimony. That should be clear. It was not interesting evidence introducing evidence that mr. Burns turned her down. How is that on the record . Ke judicial notice. Its been asked repeatedly. I dont recall is hearing that. I dont recall ms. Willis testifying to that exact fact. Mr. Banks represented that to the court during mondays hearing as it relates to the allegations that were made. I understand that. Just making sure we understand whats exactly in the evidence regardless, i think your point is made. Its in the evidence of the record as it relates to the issues that led up actual hearing of this case. I understand your honors position. But it did come out during the preceding that was prior to the actual hearing. This slide is just a chart testimony of both the District Attorney ms. Willis and mr. Wade as it relates to how they met. How and when mr. Wade became the special prosecutor, when the relationship evolved into a romantic one. Talking about the trips in which they took after their relationship evolved into one that became romantic. And when it ended. Again, i would submit to the court that those facts were consistent. The only person who contradicted that when the relationship started was miss erie. I would bring to the courts attention thait was represented to the court that she was a witness other than mr. Bradley who could bring to the forefront this issue of cohabitation. When asked about it, absently no information as it relates to this alleged cohabitation. It was false. She said she had no information. She was asked about trips. She said she had no information about the trips. Yet she is such a good friend that mill ms. Wilswade and hn a relationship. 2019, 2020, 2021 until their relationship ended do to her forced resignation. And the splintering of their friendship. Several exhibits obviously were tendered in. Most of them were exhibits that came from the divorce of mr. Wade and miss jocelyn■a wade. The contract for Legal Services and the Text Messages. I would specificly, prior to today the only Text Messages that were before your honor were exhibits 26 and 27. Its the assertion of the defense counsel that what those show is that mr. Bradley was had information as it relates to the relationship starting prior to march of 2022. Thats just false. Those Text Messages do not contain that. It does not pinpoint when the relationship actually started. Furthermore, you have the testimony and the evidence of the Text Messages that it was mere speculation. If you review the full chain of Text Messages, it is clearly miss merchan and mr. Bradley goin■g through what i can describe as nothing else other than a mere fishing expedition between the two of them at first. Its asked about certain members of the das office who would have information as it relates specifically from this young, whether she would have information. Heea. He said he was speculating. Thats the same as each person that was subpoenaed in the Text Messages. All of that was speculation. You know it was speculation because not a single one of them testified. Thats telling. It wasnt mere speculation. If it wasnt gossip and conjecture, each one of those people who were subpoenaed would have been called to testify like District Attorney willis was, like mr. Wade was in order to be confronted and then impeached by mr. Bradley. Youve heard obviously about the phone records. Whether it comes into the purview of your honor as it relates to the determination as it relates to the disqualification of the District Attorney. You also have the affidavit from the employee who works at the winery who confirms that ms. Willis did in fact pay in cash, up to more than 400. I understand that this is part of the proffer of the state. Its important because thats a witness who the state didnt go fine. Thats a witness who went to cnn in order to confirm what ms. Willis testified to, further giving her statements credibility and credence before the court. Before we move on from that one, other than the foundational concerns, would you have a response to the proffer of the cell phone records . I will get to that now. I have several foundational concerns as it relates to the cell phone records. I dont think the state uses cell phone records routinely. I would agree with that. We use them routinely. But we use them with an expert. They are always challenged. In the interest of time, setting aside the foundational concerns i thought you were askg about them. Maybe■n you have that further up. What is the reaction to that . What i would say initially is that, due to the fact th t anals a nonexpert, the analyst asian of the cell phone records were not proply clear from the states review that the normal practices that are used to check the use of which kind of data is being used, in reference to the two specific dates, i believe it is september 10 and 11 and november 29 and 30th. The affidavit that is used to say that mr. Wade remains■t at e area of hapeville during the hearing, the address never came out. It was just that it was the hapeville condo. The actual phone number for mr. Wade was never established. The documents that were provided to the state that were certified Business Records did not have a subscriber base. We have no idea that the number belongs to mr. Wade. Inderstd you want to look past the foundational issues. I can appreciate that. The foundational stuff is very important as it relates to the admissibility of the record. No doubt about that. Do you have any reaction . Yes. I do. I will skip forward. So whats interesting is that the records that were provided starting january of 2021 and they go to november 30, i think is what the 2021 record is. You heard from all of the witnesses. Ms. Willis did not move into the address until april of 2021. That was the testimony from all the witnesses. April 20 21. Home from when she met mr. Wade in october of 2019 up until when she had to move. The assertion by the defense counsel is that mr. Wade and miss willis began a relationship right after they met in october 2019. Whats interesting and whats telling is that mr. Wades headset doesnt ever once appear anywhere near the area of her they are in a serious relationship. If you believe what the defense counsel says, that theyve been in a relationship from october 2019 up until she moves in april of 2021. A year and a half or so. But he never once enters the area of her home. They want you to believe thats a lie. Thats why counsel to continue to press willis and wade as to whether hed ever been to that home. This corroborates that that was not a lie. He had never been to that home. Its more than suspect if youve been a relationship as they claim for all this time but never once went to the house. ■ so i think thats telling. What i would also bring to the courts attention in the states initial r january 2021 to marchf 2021, those times when miss willis did not live at the hapeville address, she didnt move there until april 2021, his handset appears in that area 23 times. How do you reconcile that with the testimony that was alluded to by counsel . The reason she gave for being in the area. Did those line to 23 times . There cant be too many reasons for being there. I think thats the point. I would say yes, thats the point. He referenced that its an area 5x clearly thats the case. Ms. Willis didnt live in the area. Its further corroboration as to what mr. Wade indicated to the courts. After miss willis moved into the condo in april of 2021, they appeared 35 times. I want to make clear to the court, both miss willis and mr. Wade never denied that he had been to the condo before. The specific testimony that was elicited by miss willis and mr. Wade was that he had never laid his head, was the direct quote, at that condo. These records dont prove that he laid his head anywhere. If you were to believe the analysis or if you were to give credence to what the nonexpert says as it relates to mr. Wades handset in september and november for the three to four hours that the phone was alleged to have remained, that doesnt disprove anything that was testified by mr. Wade and District Attorney willis, that he visited there. The specific hours of their visits was not something that was pursued during the questioning of both of the parties. What i would also submit to the court is that if you look at the days as it relates to september and november, the type of information that is used to make the plot for the longitude and latitude of the handsets data records. Its not voice records, sms or Text Messages, its data records. Its not uncommon for an expert to testify as it relates specifically to at t records, that that actual data record is unreab location of the handset due to the type of information that it is. Data. Not the voice and sms. As its been referenced, by the prosecutor not only in this county but for the federal government, where this kind of information is commonlusthe comy the court, it was clear that you understood and understand the use of cell phone records as it relates, to put somebody in an area. Again, not in a specific location. Id also bring to the courts attention as it relates to the validity of the affidavit and the analysis done by the experts that were hired, that not once did it reference the fact that at t records commonly have duplicate and triplicatewithin. That is something that is commonly seen. That is something that is seen in these records. That is something that leads to the incorrect number of times thats been alleged that ms. Willis and mr. Wade were in communication through text and voicemail. I would submit to the court that that number doesnt prove anything again. Doesnt prove that anybody is in a relationship. It proves that they were in communication with each other. Use your own Life Experience as it relates to people you work with our friends that you are close with and the number of times that you make calls to any of those people. I can submit to the court that i have a friend who i have been friends with for 15 years and she worked in the office previously with me. Based on our professional relationship and our personal relationship, the friendship that we had and still have, that we talked 30 times a day. That doesnt mean we are in a relationship. So the assertion that the number of times that ms. Willis had mr. Wade have spoken to each other, whether through text message or phone, it has no validity. As it relates to them being in a relationship. What i would submit to the court is that what was shown through all of the evidence was that to ms. Willis as it relates to her life. She has a digital additional expenses that she had to endure because of her position and the fact that she told the court that she had a mortgage. On top of that mortgage, she had to pay for a safe house. Her home was vandalized. There were racial epithets and sexual bigotry that were spraypainted onto her house. The concern of her safety and herife is some thing that was testified to. The fact that the job has led to the isolation and separation of her from her family and friendsd credibility was provided by her father. Mr. Floyd had only seen his daughter 13 times since all these instances occurred. The full nature of the statements and falsehoods■u5a■nn these Text Messages that were purposely leaked to the media as it relates to ms. Williss daughter, subjecting her position in school, that she flunked out of college which isnt true. In fact, she has graduated from that hbcu. What was leaked to the media was the fact that she flunked out of school and someone other than her father moved her. The validity of which was never shown. And all the while, miss willis facing these costs has been able to continue to do the work on related to this case, which is shown in the fact that atlantas murder rate and Violent Crime rates have decreased while shes been in office. What was shown through the testimony of all of the witnesses and through the evidence that your honor heard was that there wasnt an actual conflict. ■m [that the defense failed to provide any sort of actual conflict in relation to ms. Wades the relationship that transpired from the relationship between her and mr. Wade and that there was actually no evidence of a financia benefit that she gained as it relates to the prosecution of this case and the ultimate outcome of the case. The corroboration of all of that is something that your honor is very much aware that she could have financially benefitedstretk of a better word by the special grand jury recommending the 39 individuals be indicted. Through her sifting through the special grand jurys report and all of the evidence with the team that indicted the case, they only went with 19 of the defendants. Had she gone with all 39, based on the defense counsels assertion, would have given her the opportunity to certainly find these financial games gains that are claimed through the allegations of the defense counsel. More portly, why would miss willis repeatedly asked the court to set a trial date as soon as possible if her motive in prosecuting this case was to continue to financially gain, as alleged from the prosecution of this case . It doesnt line up. It doesnt make sense. It doesnt make sense for a reason, because it doesnt exist. More importantly, is office has several largescale cases like this one and much larger. Theres a lot of high profile prosecutions. If ms. Willis is ultimate goal by hiring mr. Wade was for her financial benefit, she would put mr. Wade on every single one of those cases. So that she could certainly revel in the riches and lavish lifestyle that has been referred to by the defense counsel. Which theres been absolute we no evidence of. The evidence was that she sit stayed at a doubletree in napa. A doubletree. I dont know that to be a lavish hotel. Most people when they go to napa , if they want to lavishly experience napa, stay at the ritzcarlton, the four seasons, things of that nature. That ms. Willis was living the lifestyle of the rich and famous is a joke. Absolute joke. As it relates to what you heard and the secondary issue is the forensic misconduct. For lack of a better word, what has to be shown is that the statements that were made by ms. Willis related to the prosecution of the case and ultimately the guilt or innocence of the defendants. We have none of those statements. Theres beo provided as it rels to ms. Williss specific statements made about any of the venice or innocence of any of the defendants. The fact that she had a 95 convention rate. Her job is to instill confidence in the community. What else is she doing it relates to her constitutional duties . That what was what had been done when she had 95 conviction rate in the previous year. Mo importantly, the allegations about race and religion being imputed in her speech, those comments were directed at the defendants at this table. If you listen the speech, the comments are directed at two elected or political officials. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Bridget Thorne, who is a member of the Fulton County board of commissioners here. She specifically use their names. My knowledge is that they are not supposed to be sitting at the table. I havent seen them in my work as it relates to this case. So those allegations that ms. Willis committed forensic validity to them. Theres no evidence of them. As it relates to any of those comments. This is an issue. Its been previously ruled on when the same allegations were alleged as it relates to extra judicial statements made by ms. Willis and it involves a statement. The words fake electors were said bthey found there was absoy no comment that was impermissible as it relates to forensic misconduct. I guess to drive home the point. At no point in any of the statements that were made and that are alleged here as it relates to the speech that she made, at the church, at no point did she mention the guilt or innocence of any of the defendants. Again, she was merely responding to comments made by marjorie Taylor Greene and Bridget Thorne , two other political officials. Therefore making her comments not even close in the realm of any sort of forensic misconduct. What i find interesting is that the defense counselllegations t. Willis committed this misconduct by the statement that she made in her defense as to Public Officials not related to this case. Causing the threat of harm to both ms. Willis and mr. Wade. The most recent instance was Text Messages that your honor hadnt ruled on their admissibility prior to their release. It was made clear during the hearing that the ability to get the full chain was something that they were unable to do. But they figured away. The minute they figured away, they released it, the information to the media simultaneously turning it over to the state. For all the reasons stated before your honor, this motion should be denied. Legal requirements that are quired in order for the District Attorney to be disqualified have not been satisfied. The defendants have failed to raise any issue legally or factually to satisfy the legal standards for disqualification. They must show an actual conflict. They been unable to show the prosecution of the case was a result of political bias which has been accused. Accusations have been made as well as demonstrated that the prosio case was motivated by any means or anyway because of malicious prosecution. They havent been able to prove that this case was one of selected political benefit or gain. All allegations that have been made during the course of different hearings and the procedures as it relates to this case. What i believe the court how the state started the argument was that courts have been generally unreceptive if not hostile to attempt to disqualify prosecutors■ b on pervasive and institutional conflicts which makes clear that the standard is very high and must be met in order for unelected District Attorney to be disquaed. That standard has not been met. An actual conflict has not been shown. More importantly, its in conjunction with that that there will be no evidence. The District Attorney has benefited financially at all. We would refer respectfully request you deny then to disqualify the elected District Attorney ms. Fani willis. Thank you. Thats what it says. Mr. Cromwell. Ok. Understood. All yours. Im going to do rebuttals, specific rebuttals. One, the state makes an argument that we should have asked mr. Wade questions about his communications with mr. Bradley. When they objected over and over and othe council objected over d over and over, claiming that everything that bradley was told by wade was attorneyclient privilege. Your honor made the determinations thereafter to bradley. We didnt get the opportunity to call mr. Wade back to the stand to get to claim that you cant impeach him because you didnt ask him when they objected to us asking him is obviously a false position to take. Its a as disingenuous as it could be. We would be more than happy to call mr. Way back to the stand. As the record stands, there could be no confrontation of mr. Wade when both his counsel and the state are arguing that it shouldnt be dsecond, lets usee common sense here. Francis forensic misconduct received two minutes worth of discussion. The olive all of the re of it is on conflict. Forensic misconduct dealing with the state is is is if you dont accuse someone or you dont say that someone is guilty assuming you can impugn someones character, why is that easier . Assuming you can impugn someones character to forensic misconduct, i guess the states primary position w werent talking about the church . Right. If you listen to it and watch it, it starts off by saying, why does commissioner Bridget Thorne and so many others and then it refers to, they attack him for being black, they attack el. They attacked the black man. They are not talking about ms. Thorne or marjorie Taylor Greene. They are talking about us. You know how Everybody Knows that . Not a single story from the media reported anything other than, fani willis accused the defense and defendants of being racist. Heres the commonsense part of this. If you follow the state positi i willis could all day long talk about race. She could say, im not saying they are guilty or not guilty but they are racist. They are racist. They are racist. According to the states position on forensic misconduct, that wouldnt be a problem. Obviousl that makes no sense whatsoever. The issue that weve dealt with on forensic misconduct is not some leave the church speech. Its why she did it. How she did it. Calculated and all the other things we talked about with the testimony of wade and willis in this case. Lets go to the relationship issues in the cell phone briefly. No one knew that there wa betwed willis. According to wade and willis. Not a soul was ever told that they were dating or that there was an intimate relationship, ever. They concealed it from all parties. From daddy. Daddy didnt even know they had a relationship. Should just suggest that somehow in the beginni■u of 2021, january to whatever it was into april, that they couldnt have met in hapeville . They didnt meet anywhere that would allow the public to see them. Thats the reason why they were meeting at nearno one else was. Remember the testimony . Who else was there besides mr. Wade and ms. Willis . Both of them agreed. No one. No one ever went there except them. They didnt go to where daddy was in this williss house. Daddy was there and that he would know. No one knows except who. The one person was bradley. Best friend. Bradley was the partner of wade. Whose motive in this case is the strongest . Fani willis. Nathan way. If they testify truthfully on every point, what happens if the relationship started before november 1 . They get disqualified. Who has the best motive of anyone to lie . They do. Who wants to stay on this case, for whatever the financial reas m be . They do. Thank you. There it is. All right. Thank you everybody. I think its been very much made clear by the argument made today that there are several legal issues to sort through, several terminations that i have to make. Those arent ones i can make at this moment. So i will be taking the time to make sure that i get this case full consideration. I hope to have an answer with everyone for the next two weeks. If there are any other issues that come up, counsel can reach out. We will have an order posted on the docket. Thank you well. We are off the record. Uz