Fulton County District Attorney Testifies Regarding Financial Transactions
In a court hearing today, the Fulton County District Attorney testified about her financial transactions and trips with a certain individual. The District Attorney firmly denied several allegations made against her and clarified the nature and extent of their relationship.
Regarding cash payments made to the individual, she stated that the amounts given were never substantial, and she never provided him with $20,000 in cash as alleged. She recalled only giving him a maximum of $2,500 for a reimbursement during a trip to Belize and around $2,000 for a trip to Aruba. She emphasized that these amounts were for specific expenses during their travels.
When questioned about a trip to California, she clarified that her daughter does not reside there and she did not go on any trips to Panama as suggested. She mentioned a trip to Napa Valley, where the individual paid for the plane tickets and hotel, and she contributed by providing around $400 to $500 in cash. Additionally, she shared that she paid for various activities such as wine tours and special dining experiences during their stay.
The District Attorney also mentioned other trips they took together, including a cruise where they spent time with the individual's mother, a trip to the Bahamas, and a visit to South Carolina to meet her sister. She made it clear that the trips they took were not frequent, and often involved brief outings for lunch or other engagements.
When it came to the issue of security detail, the District Attorney asserted that her security team has never taken the individual from any place she resided. She stated that her security detail primarily ensures her safety and rarely accompanies her or the individual to personal outings, such as lunches or dinners.
During the hearing, the defense sought to obtain Delta flight records to establish the nature of the trips taken by the District Attorney and the individual. However, the District Attorney strongly objected to the request, claiming that it was an invasion of privacy and irrelevant to the ongoing trial.
The court allowed the objection and did not require the production of the flight records, emphasizing that the focus of the trial should remain on the alleged attempt to manipulate the 2020 election.
It is important to note that these testimonies were provided in the context of an ongoing trial, and the veracity of the statements made will be assessed by the court during the course of the proceedings.
