Donald Trump's attorney Steve Sadow asked Nathan Wade why he filed his divorce after being hired by Fulton County.

"Can you answer the question why you waited until Nov. 2, the day after you were hired by Miss Willis. to file for divorce?" asked Sadow.

"I can't," Wade replied.

Wade explained that because his ex-wife had relocated to Texas, he was only able to serve her the divorce papers when she returned to Georgia.

"It was purely by coincidence that I filed the day after the contract with the DA's office," Wade said.

In a stern line of questioning, Trump's attorney Steve Sadow challenged prosecutor Nathan Wade on why DA Fani Willis would reimburse him in cash for travel and trips.

"You would have received thousands of dollars in cash from Miss Willis, correct?" Sadow asked.

"Yes, sir," replied Wade.

Trump's attorney then asked Wade if he "knew the source of the cash" – which Wade said he did not, claiming it was "out of her pocketbook."

Sadow followed up, wondering why Willis' form of repayment didn't stand out to Wade.

"The whole time that you she was paying you in cash, you never said, 'Hey, why do you have this amount of cash?'" Sadow asked.

Wade answered that in his law practice, "people come into my law firm all the time with cash" and that he "never questioned where they got it."

Sadow shot back, saying, "But we're talking not about people that come into your law firm -- we're talking about the district attorney of Fulton County, who I'm assuming receives a paycheck. She doesn't get paid in cash."

Wade also testified that he never saw any records of Willis making cash withdrawals.

Facing questions from former President Trump's attorney Steve Sadow for the first time, prosecutor Nathan Wade testified that his relationship with Willis ended in the summer of 2023.

"I would say June maybe," Nathan said of the timing.

Sadow and Wade then went through an awkward line of questioning regarding whether Wade had a "personal" relationship after the breakup.

"Are you asking me if I had intercourse with the district attorney?" Wade asked bluntly.

"I was trying not to," Sadow responded. Wade eventually answered no.

Sadow also peppered Wade with questions about who knew about the relationship.

"If it was a legitimate relationship, is there any reason this relationship was kept secret or private?" he asked.

"We weren't trying to keep anything secret, Mr. Sadow," Wade said later.

Craig Gillen, the attorney for Trump co-defendant David Shafer, pressed Nathan Wade on his contract with Fulton County, how much he was paid, and the timeline of his personal relationship with DA Fani Willis.

"During the course of romantic relations, yes or no -- you signed [the] extension on November the 15th, 2022?" Gillen asked, referring to Wade's contract with Fulton County.

"The answer to that question is yes," Wade replied.

"Ater the Aruba trip, you get re-upped with a new contract?" Gillen asked.

"Correct," replied Wade.

Asked by Gillen about an invoice that billed Fulton County for "24 hours of work in one day," Wade said the date reflects when he completed the task of preparing the election case for pretrial.

"Tell the court what you billed for on November 5, 2021," Gillen said.

"On November the 5th, I completed the task of preparing the cases for pretrial," Wade said. "That's the date I completed..." Wade continued, before being interrupted by Gillen, who said, "Just read it."

Former President Trump's attorney Steve Sadow, in the first portion of his closing argument, focusing on the speech DA Fani Willis gave at Big Bethel AME Church in January, which he claimed was "a calculated determination by Ms. Willis to prejudice" a prospective jury against the defendants.

"I appointed three special counselors," Willis said in her speech, noting that Wade was the only Black one. "Isn't it them playing the race card when they only question one?"

"Willis took it upon herself to go to to a historic black church in Atlanta, having not responded at all, to the motion of Miss Merchant's client Roman ... it was a calculated determination by Miss Willis to prejudice the defendants and their counsel," Sadow argued to the court.

Sadow argued that the speech represented an "ethical violation," saying that Willis' comments invoking "race and religion" significantly heightened public condemnation of the defendant.

"Can you think of anything more that would heighten public condemnation of the defendant than alleging that defense counsel and the defendants were making their motion based on race and religion? That's just as bad as it gets in Fulton County," Sadow said.

"She could have said the facts of the matter. Instead, she misstated what the situation was took advantage of the opportunity," he argued.