Testimony from one of the defense's key witnesses appears to be falling short as the judge seems to grow frustrated with repeated lines of questioning.

"I haven't really heard a point in a while," the judge told defense attorney Ashleigh Merchant amid a prolonged questioning of Nathan Wade's former law partner, Terrence Bradley, about his contract with the DA’s office. "Can we get along to something or we're gonna have to wrap it up."

The defense took a hit when the judge ruled earlier against their crime-fraud exception argument that would have compelled Bradley to testify about text messages with Merchant about Wade's relationship with DA Fani Willis – which Trump's attorney claimed could show Wade perjured himself on the stand about when that relationship started.

But with the judge blocking that testimony for now, instead, the defense has been focused on long-winding questions about Bradley's legal contracts and about whether or not he had dinner with Wade or Willis – seemingly not what the defense had hoped would take up the witnesses' testimony.

At one point, another defense attorney argued to the court that adultery would fall under the crime-fraud exception – but the judge, seemingly growing annoyed, quickly shot it down.

Bradley was first called earlier this morning after the state declined to question Willis but was at a doctor's appointment. A person with Bradley told ABC News he attended the doctor's appointment because he figured Willis's testimony would take up the morning.

The state has forcefully worked all day to invoke privilege to block aspects of Bradley's testimony.

Terrence Bradley testified that he is “sure” prosecutor Nathan Wade told Bradley about “socializing” with DA Fani Willis prior to November 2021.

“Did Mr. Wade ever tell you prior to November 1 of 2021 that he had socialized or gone out to eat with Miss Willis in anything other than a professional setting?” asked Donald Trump’s attorney Steve Sadow.

“I'm sure he did,” Bradley replied.

Before that, Bradley also testified that he couldn't recall if Wade and Willis met privately in Wade's office.

"Did Miss Willis meet privately with Mr. Wade in his office that you observed?" Sadow asked.

"I can't recall," Bradley replied.

Judge McAfee said Friday he would review Terrence Bradley’s text messages with prosecutor Nathan Wade after the hearing.

McAfee indicated the review would happen on-camera but remain sealed unless he’s “ever directed otherwise.”

“In order to preserve the record, at the conclusion of the hearing, I think I can go on camera with Mr. Chopra and Mr. Bradley and we can put in a sealed filing exactly what the extent of those communications were,” he said.

“Those [would] remain sealed until sometime if we’re ever directed otherwise,” the judge said.

Trump attorney Steve Sadow accused prosecutor Nathan Wade of perjury on the witness stand, related to when his relationship began with DA Fani Willis.

"Mr. Wade committed perjury on the witness stand," Sadow said standing in court, continuing his argument for why Terrence Bradley's testimony regarding his texts and knowledge of Wade and Fani Willis' relationship.

Bradley has testified that he did not have personal knowledge of the relationship between Wade and Willis. But the defense is arguing the texts would show otherwise.

"A lawyer shall not knowingly failed to disclose and material fact to a tribunal. When disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act," Sadow said.

Adam Abbate, an attorney with the district attorney's office, argued that defendants had failed to meet the "high standard of proof" for disqualification -- calling the narrative they spun about Willis and Wade's relationship "absolutely absurd."

"It doesn't make any sense," Abbate said. "The motions to disqualify should be denied, and Miss Willis as district attorney of Fulton County, and Mr. Wade, as the special prosecutor assigned to this case, should be allowed to remain on this case and continue to prosecute the case."

Contrary to what defense attorneys argued, Abbate argued that they must prove an "actual conflict" of interest to secure a disqualification -- not just the "appearance of impropriety."

"The defense has to show an actual conflict, and in this instance, they have to show in the actual conflict would be that Miss Willis received a financial benefit or gain -- and got it based upon the outcome of the case," Abbate said.

"We have absolutely no evidence that Miss Willis received any financial gain or benefit," he argued. "The testimony was that Miss Willis paid all of the money back in cash as related to the trips."

Judge McAfee seemed skeptical of that argument, citing language that allows for removal based on the "appearance of impropriety" and referencing examples of past misconduct raised by the defendants.

Abbate pushed back, arguing that in each of those cases, the "appearance of impropriety ... arose from the fact that the court found an actual conflict in each of those cases."

Abbate also called into question the credibility of defendants' key witnesses in the disqualification hearings, calling the testimony of Robin Yeartie, ex-friend of Willis, "at best inconsistent."