Nathan Wade wants to block his divorce lawyer from talking to Trump's Georgia trial judge

The Georgia attorney prosecuting former President Donald Trump on election racketeering charges wants to block his divorce lawyer from speaking to the judge tasked with determining if Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis should be yanked from the case, newly reported court records show.

Nathan Wade’s motion followed a dramatic evidentiary hearing during which the special prosecutor’s former law partner Terrence Bradley refused to answer questions he said could violate attorney-client privilege.

In his Thursday filing, Wade raises the same concerns over Judge Scott McAfee’s request to meet with Bradley behind closed doors and in private.

“If the Court were now to disregard ‘the most sacred of all legally recognized privileges’ whose ‘preservation is essential to the just and orderly operation of our legal system,’ it would be a step too far,” the prosecutor argued.

“The Court should not conduct the examination under any circumstance.”

ALSO READ: How Donald Trump is spreading a dangerous mental illness to his supporters

Wade argues Trump’s co-defendants — who accuse Willis of misconduct over her personal relationship with an attorney she herself hired — were already allowed too much leeway during the dramatic two-day hearing in Georgia last week.

“The Defendants sought to introduce intrusive and legally irrelevant personal details of multiple people's lives for the world to watch unfold in real time,” Wade argues. “But still no credible evidence exists in the record to support their tenuous claims.”

National security attorney Bradley Moss, whose legal opinions have been cited by CNN and the Huffington Post, believes Scott is unlikely to rule in Wade’s favor.

“This will be denied,” Moss wrote on X. “The judge already made clear he has questions about whether Bradley is too broadly applying the definition of [attorney-client] privilege.”

But for CNN reporter Zachary Cohen, a larger question loomed.

“Bigger question, I think, is whether this ultimately impacts potential timeline for the next hearing,” he replied.