Former District Attorney Fani Willis faced a series of questions during a recent proceeding regarding a speech she gave at a historic African-American church, commonly referred to as the 'church speech.' The District Attorney was asked about her preparation for the speech, including whether she had handwritten notes and if she had read from them during the speech. However, the line of questioning concerning forensic misconduct was deemed irrelevant by the court.
The focus then shifted to financial matters, specifically cash withdrawals. When asked if her bank records would reflect cash withdrawals during the years 2020 to 2023, the District Attorney confirmed that she had indeed withdrawn money during that time. However, objections regarding the relevance and purpose of this line of questioning were sustained by the court.
Moving on to her contact with Mr. Wade in 2020, the District Attorney confirmed that there had been limited contact due to her own political campaign and his health issues. The court questioned whether they had dined together or visited each other's offices during that time. The District Attorney mentioned the possibility of dining together and visiting each other's offices but clarified that it did not happen frequently. She highlighted the restricted nature of office visits during 2020 due to the ongoing pandemic.
Regarding their Belize trip in March 2023, it was revealed that the District Attorney had paid for the hotel, flights, meals, massages, and other expenses. Some payments were made in cash, while others were likely reflected on credit card bills. The court inquired about the District Attorney's cash hoard, to which she stated that she had money wherever she was staying but clarified that it was not confined to her residence.
Throughout the proceeding, objections were raised regarding the relevance of certain lines of questioning, with the court ultimately sustaining many of them. The court emphasized the need to focus on pertinent matters. The District Attorney provided answers to the best of her recollection, taking into account the limited nature of certain interactions and the challenges of keeping track of specific details.
The court adjourned the proceeding after covering the various topics, leaving some inquiries unanswered due to their deemed irrelevance. Both the District Attorney and her legal representatives acknowledged the need for further discussions in private to address any remaining areas of concern.
The court made it clear that the purpose of the proceeding was to gather relevant information and avoid unnecessary harassment. The District Attorney's testimony shed some light on her actions and interactions during the specified time period, providing a glimpse into her professional and personal life.
