Former president Donald Trump‘s legal team presented the proposed additional information, which included an analysis of cell phone records, before Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade on Friday.
Criminal defense investigator Charles Mittelstadt wrote in an affidavit that Willis and Wade made more than 2,000 calls and had just under 12,000 interactions over an 11-month period in 2021. He also analyzed Wade’s phone communications with cell towers near where Willis lived at the time. .
In a filing later Friday, Willis asked the court to exclude Trump’s team’s petition, arguing that the records did not prove the content of communications between Willis and Wade and did not prove that either person was at a specific address.
“The phone records just don’t prove anything,” Willis said.
“The records do nothing more than demonstrate that Special Counsel Wade’s phone was located somewhere within a densely populated several-mile radius of various residences, restaurants, bars, nightclubs and other establishments,” the filing states.
NBC News reached out to the district attorney’s office and Trump’s attorneys for comment Friday night after Willis’ latest plea. The DA’s office declined to comment before Willis’ plea was released Friday.
There’s Willis and Wade before said said their personal relationship began in 2022 and was not present when Wade was hired on the Georgia election meddling case.
Willis accused Trump and 18 defendants the shooting of defendants last year on charges of attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. Trump pleaded not guilty.
Trump and co-defendant Michael Roman are trying to get Willis fired. Roman has lawyers argued Willis and Wade “made themselves rich out of it.”
Earlier this month Referee Scott McAfee A misconduct hearing was held to determine whether Willis should be fired. There’s Willis argued “any personal relationships between members of the prosecution team do not create a disqualifying conflict of interest or otherwise prejudice the criminal defendant.”