Pressed further by Trump attorney Steve Sadow, DA Fani Willis testified regarding prosecutor Nathan Wade that she did "not consider our relationship to have become romantic until 2022."

"I don't consider my relationship to be romantic with him before that," she said of Wade's hiring.

Sadow suggested that Wade and Willis have not been truthful about the timing.

When he asked Willis who she told about the relationship, Sadow suggested her "failure" to notify other members of team suggests that the relationship "was not as its been characterized to the court" and "that it started earlier than what they say."

Willis said her and Wade were friends since at least 2020.

"I want to be clear, because my credibility is being evaluated," she said.

DA Fani Willis was pressed repeatedly by Trump attorney Steve Sadow about whether Willis had a romantic relationship with Wade prior to November 2021.

“I'm asking you whether or not prior to Nov. 1 of 2021, there was a romantic relationship with Mr. Wade?” Sadow asked.

“I didn't consider my relationship with him to be romantic before that," Willis said.

Sadow asked Willis whether Wade visited the condo leased by her friend Robin Yeartie. Willis previously said she took over Yeartie’s lease at one point and paid her rent.

“Would you give us an approximation of how many times Mr. Wade visited you at the condo between the time you moved in and prior to November 2020?” Sadow asked.

“I don't think often, but I don't -- I don't want to speculate,” Willis replied.

Former President Trump's attorney Steven Sadow is now questioning Fani Willis on the stand.

As Sadow stepped up to question her, he started with a veiled dig at the DA.

"I'm going to try to ask you questions that you can actually answer without having to explain, OK?" Sadow said.

"Yes, sir. My comprehension skills are pretty good. So we should do all right," Willis replied.

"We shall soon see," Sadow said.

Sadow began questioning Willis about her condo, which Wade testified earlier that he visited before being hired.

At one point when Sadow raised his voice, Willis said, "You don't have to yell at me."

Following a brief recess, the hearing resumed with Judge Scott McAfee urging decorum following the shouting match.

"I advise everyone -- this being a room mostly full of lawyers -- I urge everyone to keep those principles in line and not talk over each other," the judge told the court.

But as Willis' heated testimony continued, the judge threatened to strike Willis's testimony.

"I'm going to have to caution you -- you have to listen to the questions asked, and if this happens again and again, I'm going to have no choice but to strike your testimony," the judge told the DA.

DA Fani Willis's office on Tuesday urged the judge to reject the disqualification effort against her, arguing in a filing that Trump and his co-defendants failed to meet the "high" standard required by law to disqualify an elected district attorney.

Willis' office, in the filing, told the judge the law requires him to find a "high standard of proof" that she has an actual conflict of interest or that she engaged in forensic misconduct -- which she says she did not do. She urged the judge to reject the arguments from Trump and others that the judge can disqualify her based solely on an appearance of a conflict.

"The binding caselaw in Georgia is clear: a trial court is not authorized to disqualify an elected district attorney absent a showing," the filing states. "Every Georgia case that has addressed the issue has reached the same conclusion: in order to authorize a trial court to disqualify an elected district attorney, an actual conflict of interest must be proven."

The filing said Trump and some of his co-defendants have asked the judge to instead to adopt a "novel" legal standard for disqualification "that has never before been recognized in Georgia."

"But no such standard exists under our law," the filing states.

The filing also emphasized that, based on the law, any alleged benefit a prosecutor received must be material, writing that a "nebulous" benefit that is not directly tied to the outcome of the case "is not enough to warrant disqualification."

"Here, the Defendants have not even alleged -- and certainly have not proven --that the District Attorney received any benefit contingent upon the outcome of this case," the filing said.