Maybe Not Such A Surprise

The big news yesterday was a "twist" in the Wade-Willis affair that came from "new evidence":

Phone records, recently unveiled in new court documents obtained by The Post, indicate a pattern of late-night visits by Wade to Willis’s apartment, raising questions about the timeline of their relationship.

According to the cellphone data presented in court, Wade frequented the vicinity of Fulton County District Attorney Willis’s condo in Hapeville at least 35 times before their confessed affair.

. . . Investigator Charles Mittelstadt, in his report to Fulton County Superior Court, emphasized the sheer volume of evidence. He highlighted two specific dates that caught his attention, revealing Wade’s presence near Willis’s apartment in September 2021 until the wee hours of the morning, followed by a late-night rendezvous in November of the same year.

. . . Mittelstadt highlighted times that refuted both Wade’s and Willis’s testimony that they had not begun a relationship prior to November 2021, and that he had only visited the apartment on occasion to discuss business.

“I was directed into a deeper analysis on two specific dates: September 11-12, 2021 (before I understand Mr Wade was hired) and November 29-30 (prior to what I understand was the in-court testimony that the romantic relationship began in 2022).

“Specifically, on September 11, 2021, Mr Wade’s phone left the Doraville area and arrived within the geoface located on the Dogwood address at 10.45pm,” Mittelstadt said.

“The phone remained there until September 12 at 3.28am at which time the phone traveled directly to towers located in East Cobb consistent with his routine pinging at his residence in the area. The phone arrived in East Cobb at approximately 4.05am, and records demonstrate he sent a text at 4.20am to Ms Willis.

This is juicy enough, but Megyn Kelly in the YouTube podcast below cites specific questions by Michael Roman's and Donald Trump's lawyers during last weeks's evidentiary hearing that strongly suggest the defense was fully aware of this information as of then.

At 7:29:

Mr Wade: Have gone to condo in Hapeville, yes ma'am

Ms Merchant: So you have gone to a condo with Ms Willis in Hapeville.

Mr Wade: I have.

Ms Merchant: Have you spent the night there.

Mr Wade: Never.

Ms Merchant: Never spent the night.

At 7:42:

Ms Merchant: Did Mr Wade ever visit you at the condo that you leased from Ms Yeartie?

Ms Willis: He visited that condo.

Ms Merchant: He visited that condo.

Ms Willis: Yes, he did.

Ms Merchant: Did he ever spend the night at that condo?

Ms Willis: No.

Ms Merchant: Just visited.

Ms Willis: Yeah, but he did visit for sure.

Kelly's podcast then moves to Trump's attorney Steven Sadow's examination of Ms Willis. At 8:00:

Mr Sadow: Did anyone else stay with you at the Yeartie condo, including Ms Yeartie?

Ms Willis: Never. Ms Yeartie never lived in the condo --

Mr Sadow: My word was "stayed", not "lived", "stayed". "Stayed" with you at the condo.

Ms Willis: I guess I don't understand the distinction, but no one ever -- I think my baby, my oldest child, I think she spent one night with me, maybe my oldest and my youngest, but I think that whole time I was in that place, other than that one night I don't think anyone ever, um, there was a very lonely period in my time, life, I don't think anyone ever spent the night other than maybe one night.

As a true crime fan, I know that someone who goes out of their way to provide extra-complete, extra-helpful information that has nothing to do with the question is lying.

At 11:12, Kelly comments, "[Merchant and Sadow] very clearly had these records when they were asking Fanny and Nathan questions last Friday, and now, knowing what we know from this affadavit and these phone records,it's very interesting to watch the testimony, becuase Nathan knows, Fanny knows, they know what the truth is, and watch them dance on these questions." At 11:46:

Mr Sadow: Can 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 1 of [2021]?

Ms Willis: I don't think often, but I don't want to speculate.

Mr Sadow: Can we say more than five? More than ten?

Ms Willis: I'm gonna tell you the problem I'm having here. Let's ay more than ten, but I'm not sure that's even accurate . . . I don't remember him being in that condo a lot.

At 12:57:

Mr Sadow: Your answer is, yes, prior to November 1 of 2021, you would have gone to the Hapeville condo and been there with Ms Willis, correct?

Mr Wade: Yes.

Mr Sadow: And you would have been there, as you indicated, for many reasons, right?

Mr Wade: Yes.

Mr Sadow: Can you give me, just list a few of the reasons.

Mr Wade: Ms Yeartie resided there, went to visit her, um, maybe went to talk about, uh, a document that I received, um --

Mr Sadow: You would go to the condo to talk about a document that you received?

Mr Wade: Absolutely.

Mr Sadow: Any other reasons?

Mr Wade: None come to mind.

Mr Sadlow: None come to mind.

Mr Wade No sir.

Mr Sadow: And would you say that was frequent? When I say "frequent", do you think prior to November 1 of 2021, you were at the condo more than ten times?

Mr Wade: No sir.

Mr Sadow: So it would be less than ten times.

Mr Wade: Yes sir

Mr Sadow: So if phone records were to reflect that you were making phone calls from the same location as the condo, before November 1 of 2021, and it was on multiple occasions, the phone records would be wrong?

Mr Wade: If phone records reflected that, yes sir.

Mr Sadow: They'd be wrong.

Mr Wade: They'd be wrong.

In hindsight, given these specific lines of questioning from both Ms Merchant and Mr Sadow, it's clear that they both were aware of the Mittelstadt geofencing evidence prior to last week's hearing and were basing their questions on it. In fact, it'ss hard to avoid thinking both Willis and Wade had some sense that the defense had evidence that contradicted their tesimony, whether it was from Ms Yeartie, Mr Bradley, or some other source like phone records, which Mr Sadow mentioned specifically in his questions to Mr Wade.

I can't avoid thinking more is going on behind the scenes. But as of yesterday,

A Fulton County judge will hear arguments on March 1 over efforts to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis from Georgia's 2020 election interference case against former President Trump.

In addition,

On Friday, McAfee also denied a motion by Wade to block his divorce attorney and former law partner, Terrence Bradley, from appearing before the judge to review potentially privileged communications Bradley allegedly made about Wade and Willis’s relationship, according to three sources familiar with the matter. An order does not yet appear on the public docket.

McAfee has called for Bradley and his lawyer to appear at the Fulton County courthouse on Monday at 1:30 p.m. ET for the so-called in camera review that’s conducted in the judge’s chambers, the sources said.

So far, McAfee hasn't been ruling in favor of the DA's office. We'll have to see what else comes out.