Now to our other major headline tonight, the developments in the Georgia election interference case against former President Donald Trump and the embattled Fulton County district attorney prosecuting that case, Fannie Willis. Trump's legal team presenting new phone records, casting doubt on Willis' testimony about a relationship she had with the man she appointed special prosecutor to investigate Trump, his name Nathan Wade. The Trump team had asked the judge to disqualify Willis from the case. They say she appointed Wade because the two were romantically involved and that Willis benefited financially from her then-boyfriend's appointment through vacations they say he took her on. In the contentious hearing last week, both Willis and Wade took the stand vehemently denying all of those allegations. They say their relationship did not start until after his appointment in November of 2021, and that they split the cost of almost all of their trips together. Wade did say he visited Willis at her home before his appointment, but that it was not very often.

Do you think prior to November first of 2021, you were at the condo more than 10 times? No, sir. So it would be less than 10 times? Yes, sir. So if phone records were to reflect that you were making phone calls from the same location as the condo before November first of 2021, and it was on multiple occasions, the phone records would be wrong? If phone records reflected that, yes, sir. They'd be wrong. They'd be wrong.

But a new court filing showing analysis of cell phone data from Wade's phone allegedly demonstrates that he visited Willis at her home at least 35 times in the months before his appointment and in the weeks immediately after. Willis also addressed when their romantic relationship began directly. Here's that portion of her testimony.

I'm asking you whether or not, prior to November first of 2021, there was a romantic relationship with Mr. Mr. Wade. It's very simple. It's either a yes or no.

I don't consider my relationship with him to be romantic before that.

But those records presented by the Trump team allegedly show that on multiple occasions in that period, Wade arrived late at night and stayed into the early morning hours. I want to bring in NBC news legal analyst Angela Sunadella to break down all of these developments. Angela, let's just start with the obvious question. Went through all of it. It sounds like this is a pretty big deal. How damning are these records? Do they actually prove definitively that he was there prior to the dates that he previously acknowledged?

I wouldn't say they definitively prove, but that's not the burden that the judge has to decide. It's not definitively. It's just a question of their credibility, and really at this point, whether or not they lied on that stand. I think it seeds enormous doubt that this relationship started after she appointed him. I think it's pretty clear from this evidence that she appointed him prior to their relationship. Sorry, the relationship started prior. But the biggest issue is that they presented in an affidavit in a reply an under oath, they testified to the fact in front of the court at the point at which this relationship started. So really, their issue is if they lied to the court at all. They didn't necessarily even have to say that earlier. They didn't have to try to prove when the relationship started. They could have just focused on the financial aspect. They did not. They affirmatively put forth these clear these statements to the court. If the judge decides that they were lying, that as officers of the court, they lied, that's hugely problematic.

What would be your legal advice if you were working with and/or representing both Nathan Wade and Also, Fannie Willis, how would you say they should move on from this?

There's a lot of options. First, they can argue that this shouldn't even be admitted as evidence, that it's an invasion of privacy. The judge hasn't even decided yet whether or not to admit this as part of the share hearing. We will likely see that next week. Also, Fannie Willis, when she was on the stand, said that they did have some a relationship. They were friends. In fact, he was her mentor. She could likely double down on that and say that they did have these late-night conversations, these late night visits, but they were not explicitly romantic. At that point, perhaps the defense can't really prove further whether or not it was romantic. Nobody was in those conversations or in the room with them. Lastly, I think, though, they would redirect back to the financial issue. The reason why there's any possible conflict of interest is if she conferred a financial benefit. She on that stand, I thought last week, did a great job claiming she did not at all, that she paid cash. She paid her way. Focusing back on that could be helpful.

When she was on the stand, too, she also made a clear point of saying, None of this is really even about me. Let's listen to some of what she had to say.

You're confused. You think I'm on trial. These people are on trial for trying to steal an in 2020. I'm not on trial, no matter how hard you try to put me on trial.

I mean, multiple things can be true at once, right? She is not on trial, technically speaking, but does this cause significant damage to her credibility, not just in this case with the former President, but moving forward?

It causes huge damage, I think almost irreparable damage, irreparable damage any way the judge rules, because let's say the judge does decide these records are enough to disqualify them from the case. Obviously, that is horrible for her. Now, on the other side, if the judge does not admit this into evidence or for some reason decides it doesn't really affect their credibility, the juror pool out there is watching. At the point, if the jury starts to doubt your credibility, doubt everything you would say on that stand or in front of them, trying to convince them of an argument, you've already lost your case.

How long do you think it will take the judge to decide whether or not these records can be admitted?

Well, March first will be the closing argument. At that point, we will likely hear both sides do a summary, and then the judge can either decide before that or after, and then he can give a decision within the week or within a couple of weeks. So we never know.

We will be watching Angela Sonadella. Thank you so much. We appreciate it.

Thanks for watching. Stay updated about breaking news and top stories on the NBC News app or follow us on social media.