Key Witness Testifies In Effort To Boot Trump Prosecutor

• Key witness Mr. Sadow testifies in ongoing legal proceedings.

• Logistical challenges during Zoom session due to change in court reporters.

• Mr. Sadow's limited knowledge of conversations between prosecutor and another individual.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis attends a Harrison Floyd bond revocation hearing in Atlanta, GA

Reuters

A key witness testified in an ongoing legal proceeding involving efforts to remove a prosecutor linked to former President Trump. The witness, Mr. Sadow, was questioned during a Zoom session, where logistical challenges arose due to a change in court reporters. The witness referred to defense exhibits 26 and 27, specifically focusing on text messages dated January 5th of the current year.

Mr. Sadow's testimony revealed that he had limited knowledge of conversations between the prosecutor and another individual, emphasizing that only one discussion regarding their relationship took place during his representation. Despite the extended timeframe of his representation, spanning over four years, Mr. Sadow maintained that he recalled only one conversation on the subject.

Further examination of defense exhibit 26 shed light on additional details, with Mr. Sadow acknowledging speculative statements made in text messages regarding the origins of the relationship in question. The admission of the exhibit faced objections related to foundation and authentication, which were overruled by the presiding judge.

3

Logistical challenges during Zoom session due to change in court reporters.

3

Key witness Mr. Sadow testifies in ongoing legal proceedings.

3

Mr. Sadow's limited knowledge of conversations between prosecutor and another individual.

Throughout the session, Mr. Sadow faced repeated questioning regarding the nature and extent of his knowledge concerning the relationship between the prosecutor and the other party. Despite attempts to clarify his speculative statements, Mr. Sadow maintained that his insights were based on conjecture rather than direct information from the prosecutor.

The proceedings highlighted the complexities of legal testimony and the challenges of establishing a clear timeline of events. As the case unfolds, further examination of evidence and witness testimonies will likely play a crucial role in determining the outcome of the legal dispute.