Joining US NOW FORMER FULTON COUNTY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR NATHAN WADE MR WADE THANK YOU, FOR BEING, HERE, THANK YOU, FOR HAVING ME SO: I WANT, TO TAKE YOU BACK, TO THIS TIMELINE OF, COURSE WE HAD THE JANUARY 6th INSURRECTION WE, ALL, KNOW, THAT: WAS, ABOUT, THERE: WAS THE, January 3rd, DONALD TRUMP CALL TO BRAD RAFFENSPERGER FANI WILLIS TAKES OFFICE JANUARY 1st 2021 AND SHE BEGINS HER INVESTIGATION INTO THE ATTEMPTS TO STEAL THE ELECTION IN GEORGIA ON FEBRUARY 10. So SHE OPENS UP THIS CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND THEN, IN NOVEMBER OF THAT YEAR, NOVEMBER, 1 2021. She HIRES YOU AS SPECIAL PROSECUTOR NOW, THAT IS THE TIMELINE, BUT I WANT TO SHOW YOU A PIECE OF SOUND THAT IS OF SOMEONE ELSE. She TRIED TO HIRE, AND THIS IS ACTUALLY THE FORMER GOVERNOR, OF, YOUR STATE, AND THIS WAS HIS REACTION, TO THE ATTEMPTS BY D A WILLIS TO HIRE, HIM TAKE A LISTEN WERE YOU APPROACHED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF FULTON COUNTY FANI, WILLIS ABOUT BEING A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR. I WAS I DON’T RECALL THE EXACT DATE, BUT I KNOW IT WAS SOME TIME. In 2021 I TOLD D A WILLIS I DIDN’T. I WOULD LIVE WITH BODY GUARDS FOR FOUR YEARS AND I DIDN’T LIKE IT AND I WASN’T GOING TO LIVE WITH BODY GUARDS FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE, GOVERNOR ROY BARNS REFUSED TO TAKE THE JOB. Why DID YOU TAKE IT? You WERE IN PRIVATE PRACTICE DOING WELL. Why DID YOU TAKE THE JOB? I RECALL THE INTERVIEW WITH GOVERNOR BARNS AND HIS REASONS FOR REFUSING TO TAKE THAT JOB WERE IN FACT THE SALARY WAS A BIT LOW BUT, MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE THREATS THAT HE KNEW THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DEAL WITH. Had I KNOWN THE EXTENT OF PASSION FROM BOTH SIDES, I DON’T KNOW THAT I THINK I WOULD HAVE PREPARED A LOT BETTER HAVING TO LIVE WITH, AS HE STATED BODY GUARDS. Is THAT YOUR REALITY, YOU HAD TO GET BODY GUARDS? Did YOU GET DEATH THREATS? That IS EXACTLY MY REALITY. You KNOW THE SEVERITY OF THE THREATS THAT I STILL GET HAVING TO EMPTY MY VOICE, MAIL, THREE AND FOUR TIMES A DAY HAVING TO HAVE SECURITY WITH MY AT MY OFFICE. Let ME SAY THIS: I LOVE LOVE, LOVE, MY FRATERNITY, BROTHERS, ALPHA PIE. Alpha, I LOVE THEM. They WERE OFFERING TO SEND ARMED GUARDS TO PROTECT ME JUST SO THAT I COULD GET SOME SLEEP AND MUCH NEEDED. These PEOPLE WERE DOING THINGS UNIMAGINABLE. At CERTAIN POINTS I HAD TO CALL MY PARENTS TO MAKE CERTAIN THEY DIDN’T CHANGE. My NAME, AND I DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT IT. My CHILDREN, COULDN’T COME TO VISIT ME BECAUSE OF THE DANGER THAT THEY WOULD FACE, BUT THOSE THREATS ARE REAL AND SO YOU, YOU WERE BROUGHT INTO THE CASE, AND YOU CAME NOVEMBER 1st. This WAS AFTER YOU KNOW THE THERE WAS THE INVESTIGATION, A SPECIAL GRAND JURY THAT THEN GETS IMPANELLED IN MAY OF 2022, THAT’S JUST THE BASIC TIMELINE, AND BECAUSE THIS IS REALLY WHAT BECAME AN ISSUE IN ATTEMPTING TO REMOVE D, A WILLIS AND YOURSELF FROM THE Case AT THE TIME THAT YOU WERE BROUGHT ON TO THE CASE FROM THEN THROUGH THE TIME OF THE GRAND JURY BEFORE YOU WERE BROUGHT ON, DID YOU HAVE A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH OR PERSONAL INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP WITH D? A WILLIS? Absolutely NOT ABSOLUTELY NOT. Our RELATIONSHIP WAS PROFESSIONAL. Our RELATIONSHIP GREW ORGANICALLY OVER TIME. It WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT DELIBERATE OR INTENTIONAL. I MADE THE STATEMENT EARLIER THAT WORKPLACE ROMANCES ARE AS AMERICAN AS APPLE PIE RIGHT. That WAS NOT TO MAKE LIGHT OF THE SITUATION. That WAS JUST TO SAY THAT IT COULD HAPPEN TO ANYONE. Of COURSE, WE’RE, NOT SPEAKING IN EXTREMES. It DOESN’T HAPPEN TO EVERYONE, BUT IT’S A THING THAT HAPPENS. It’S A THING THAT HAPPENED TO US. I FELT LIKE WE DEALT WITH IT IN A MANNER THAT WAS PROFESSIONAL. We KEPT OUR PERSONAL LIVES, PERSONAL AND PRIVATE, AND I STILL BELIEVE THAT IT HAD NO PLACE IN THE COURTROOM. Not NOW AND NOT. Then NOW THIS ISSUE BECAME AN ISSUE IN YOUR DIVORCE. You FILED FOR DIVORCE LITERALLY THE DAY AFTER YOU WERE BROUGHT ON AS SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, AND THIS BECAME AN ISSUE TO THE POINT WHERE YOUR FORMER WIFE TRIED TO SUBPOENA AND DRAG D, A WILLIS INTO THE CASE. And SO YOU KNOW THE CONTENTION THAT SHE WAS MAKING. Was THAT THIS WAS AN ON GOING RELATIONSHIP THAT BEGAN BEFORE SO YOU SAY THAT ABSOLUTELY IT DID NOT BEGIN BEFORE YOU BECAME SPECIAL PROSECUTOR. Absolutely NOT. I THINK THE CONTENTION THAT SHE WAS MAKING AT THE TIME WAS NOT THAT IT BEGAN BEFORE THEN, WAS THAT THERE WAS SOME FUNDS THAT WERE USED, MARITAL FUNDS THAT WERE USED IN ORDER TO ENTERTAIN HER OKAY AND NOW LET’S TALK ABOUT THIS BECAUSE THE CASE To TRY TO REMOVE D A WILLIS AND TO REMOVE YOURSELF IT INVOLVED TO ME THIS IS NOT ANYONE.’S, BUSINESS! Everyone,’S, PERSONAL LIFE. As YOU SAID, WORKPLACE ROMANCES HAPPEN. You HAD A GRAND JURY THAT WAS IMPANELLED LATER IN 2022 ABOUT WHEN DID THE RELATIONSHIP TAKE PLACE? So LET ME SAY THIS: I NEEDED TO BE CLEAR THAT WHEN THE RELATIONSHIP BEGAN, MY THEN WIFE WAS NOT IN THE HOME. She HAD MOVED TO TEXAS AND WE HAD BEEN SEPARATED FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. We DID NOT HAVE A RELATIONSHIP, SHE KNEW, AND I KNEW BY AGREEMENT THAT AS SOON AS OUR YOUNGEST CHILD GRADUATED HIGH SCHOOL AND MATRICULATED INTO COLLEGE, THEN WE WOULD THEN FORMALLY FILE THE DIVORCE. Now, AS IT RELATES TO YOUR QUESTION, SPECIFICALLY, YOU’RE ASKING WHEN IT TOOK PLACE FROM INDICTMENT, OR WE KNOW THAT IT TOOK PLACE. Obviously, DURING THE TIME WHEN YOU TWO WERE WORKING TOGETHER ON PROSECUTING THIS CASE OR ON ADVANCING THE GRAND JURY CASE, I GUESS MORE IMPORTANTLY, DID IT GIVE YOU PAUSE. You’RE IN THE MIDST OF REALLY THE MOST HIGH PROFILE CASE, PROBABLY OF EITHER OF YOUR LIVES. This IS A FORMER PRESIDENT POTENTIAL FUTURE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Did IT DIF, YOU PAUSE TO SAY YOU KNOW WHAT THIS IS TOO RISKY. It ABSOLUTELY DID IT ABSOLUTELY. Did SHE – AND I HAD CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THAT WHEN WE FELT AS THOUGH THE RELATIONSHIP WAS GOING TO A PLACE THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BECOME AN ISSUE WITH OUR WORK? Then WE SAT AND WE HAD A CONVERSATION AND WE DID WHAT WAS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE SANCTITY OF THE CASE. Now, GIVEN OBVIOUSLY DIVORCES ARE CONTENTIOUS, WE KNOW HOW THAT CAN SOMETIMES PLAY OUT AT SOME POINT. Your FORMER BUSINESS PARTNER, YOUR FORMER LAW PARTNER, WHO WAS ALSO YOUR DIVORCE LAWYER, STARTED COMMUNICATING WITH ATTORNEYS FROM THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, AND OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THOSE ATTORNEYS IS THE ONE THAT BROUGHT THE CASE THAT ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN YOU ENDING UP LEAVING THE CASE. Do YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS POLITICAL COLLUSION THAT YOUR FORMER LAW PARTNER, YOUR FORMER DIVORCE ATTORNEY, WAS COLLUDING DELIBERATELY AND POLITICALLY, WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OR WITH TRUMP WORLD IN ORDER TO UP END THE CASE? I DO BELIEVE THAT I BELIEVE THAT 110 – I’M, NOT CERTAIN. Why OR WHEN OR HOW THAT COMMUNICATION STARTED. But I DO I’M VERY PROUD TO BE AN ATTORNEY. I TAKE PRIDE IN IT. I DON’T, LIKE LAWYER, JOKES, I DON’T THINK THAT I THINK TO BE AN ATTORNEY IS SOMETHING TO ASPIRE TO RIGHT. So I TAKE IT VERY SERIOUSLY. I DON’T FEEL AS THOUGH HIS RELATIONSHIP WAS CONSISTENT WITH SOMEONE WHO TAKES THEIR LEGAL OATH SERIOUSLY. Yeah. There WAS COLLUSION A LOT OF IT, AND YOU BELIEVE THAT BRINGING THIS ISSUE OUT, WHICH WAS A PRIVATE DIVORCE, PROCEEDING AND BRINGING IT INTO THE PUBLIC, WAS FOR THE PURPOSES OF OBSTRUCTING THIS PROSECUTION. Absolutely ABSOLUTELY. I BELIEVE THAT THE FOCUS OF THIS ENTIRE – I WILL CALL IT A SHER RAID, SOMETHING THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS THAT INDICTMENT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. Nowhere ON THAT INDICTMENT IS THE NAME NATHAN WADE. Nowhere ON THAT INDICTMENT IS THE NAME FANI WILLIS, AND TO TO THAT POINT, WHEN THE JUDGE, WHEN JUDGE McAFEE ACTUALLY CLEARED YOU OF WELL ESSENTIALLY SAID THEY FOUND NOTHING IN YOUR ACTIONS OR IN D, A WILLIS’ACTIONS THAT IN ANY WAY INTERFERED WITH THE CASE. The CASE COULD GO ON, BUT THAT ONE OF YOU HAD TO ACTUALLY LEAVE THE CASE AND YOU MADE THAT DECISION. Did YOU WALK INTO THAT HEARING PREPARED TO RESIGN FROM THE CASE I WALKED INTO THE HEARING PREPARED TO – AND I’M BEING VERY CAREFUL HERE BECAUSE THIS OBVIOUSLY THIS ISSUE IS BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS AND I DON’T WANT TO DO ANYTHING TO JEOPARDIZE Their DECISION MAKING, BUT GOING INTO THAT HEARING, I HAD EVERY CONFIDENCE THAT TRIER OF FACT JUDGE McAFEE, WOULD FOLLOW THE LAW AND MAKE DECISIONS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW, NOT CONSISTENT WITH FEELINGS OR CONJECTURE OR DICTA THAT HE USED IN HIS ORDER. I JUST WHEN YOU DICTA, YOU MEAN SOME OF HIS MORE PERSONAL COMMENTS ABOUT D, A WILLIS I FIND FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY. She CAN REMAIN ON THE CASE, BUT HE ADDED SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE ODOR OF MENDACITY AND OTHER THINGS. You THINK THAT WAS UNNEEDED. I DON’T THINK THAT IT WAS NECESSARY. I THINK MANY LEGAL ANALYSTS AND EXPERTS SAID THAT YOU KNOW THAT ENTIRE PIECE OF HIS ORDER WAS, I THINK, JUST TO PROVE A POINT. You KNOW JUDGES HAVE A TOUGH JOB AND I THINK THAT IN DOING THEIR JOB IN BEING FAIR AND IMPARTIAL, SOMETIMES PERSONAL FEELINGS COME OUT, AND I THINK THAT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN WHAT WE SAW THERE. An ODOR OF MENDACITY IN ALL FAIRNESS COULD COME FROM A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING. We COULD HAVE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES. I MAY NOT UNDERSTAND WHY A CERTAIN CULTURE DOES A CERTAIN THING, SO IT COULD BE SUSPICIOUS TO ME RIGHT. So WE’LL GIVE HIM THAT BENEFIT. Okay. When WE COME BACK, I WANT TO SHOW YOU, SPEAKING OF PERSONAL
