The legal community and political commentators swiftly voiced their opinions following a recent exposé that shed light on the interactions between Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and her appointed special prosecutor in the investigation against the former President, Donald Trump.

The report, which surfaced last Friday, highlighted multiple visits by the special prosecutor to Willis' residence before his official appointment, challenging their previous assertions under oath, as Daily Wire reported.

Cell Data Contradicts Testimony

According to a detailed investigation by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, mobile phone records have unveiled that Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor, made 35 visits to the Hapeville, Georgia, neighborhood where Willis resides.

This revelation directly contradicts their testimonial claims earlier this month.

During an evidentiary hearing prompted by Judge Scott McAfee's concerns over a potential conflict of interest, both Willis and Wade admitted to engaging in a romantic relationship, which they insist began only after Wade's appointment.

The cellphone data further complicates matters, indicating Wade's late-night presence at Willis' condominium on multiple occasions, despite their testimony that such overnight stays never occurred.

Reaction from the Legal Community

Journalist Megyn Kelly and legal professionals have expressed astonishment and concern over these findings.

Kelly pointed out the severity of the situation, emphasizing the likelihood of perjury charges and disciplinary actions.

"Stunning that Team Trump got their hands on this in the #FaniWillis case," she remarked.

Kelly added, "More evidence that these two prosecutors lied, under oath. They're looking at perjury charges and worse. Discipline from the Bar. And there is zero chance they can stay on this case. It's DONE."

Phil Holloway, an attorney and legal analyst, underscored the significance of the discrepancy between their testimonies and the cell data.

He highlighted the specific times and dates, suggesting that the court could perceive this discrepancy as deceptive.

Holloway said, "Is this wordplay and semantics? Or is this perjury? At worst it's perjury, at best the testimony is misleading."

He added, "Either way the judge would be justified to find this to be part of a fraud on the court. This is very dangerous legal territory for these two. "They just keep digging."

Legal expert Jonathan Turley noted the pending need for Willis's response, acknowledging the current narrative's one-sided nature.

Turley also raised concerns about the potential impact of Willis and Wade's insistence on staying involved in the case, noting the growing appearance of impropriety and conflict of interest.

Judge McAfee has set a hearing for March 1 to discuss the potential disqualification of Willis and Wade.