Peach State Sen. Bill Cowsert, a Republican who represents the college town of Athens, is the chair of the Senate Special Committee on Investigations. That committee has been looking into Willis for years . Since the summer of 2024, Cowsert has been intent on getting Willis to talk under oath about her long-frustrated Trump crusade.
Though Willis has resisted those efforts at every turn, this week she told Fulton County Superior Court Judge Shukura L. Ingram her stonewalling has come to an end — for now and for the most part.
“Petitioner has agreed to produce documents previously produced to the United States House Judiciary Committee and public documents previously produced and publicly filed in response to attempts to disqualify the Office of the District Attorney in the Atlanta Judicial Circuit,” the filing reads. “Both parties agree that these productions — documents provided to United States House Judiciary Committee and Responses to the ‘Motion to Disqualify’ — will satisfy the production of documents to be given to the Senate Special Committee on Investigations. This agreement does not waive any future subpoenas or objections to them.”
The focus of the committee’s investigation is how Willis spent public funds on her failed racketeering (RICO) and election interference investigation into the 45th and 47th president — and whether any funds earmarked for other purposes were improperly diverted.
A subpoena was issued by the Georgia state Senate in August 2024, but appeared superfluous at first. The prosecutor was slated to appear and speak under oath at a public hearing held by the committee that September — but ultimately she was a no-show .
Around the same time, Cowsert moved to enforce years-old subpoenas against Willis for documents and testimony — as well as the latest subpoena. In turn, Willis and her office filed for a permanent injunction to stop the subpoenas from being enforced.
In early December 2024, attorneys for the parties argued the general issues in the case as well as for and against the possibility of Willis being held in contempt. On Dec. 23, 2024, the court ruled in the committee’s favor on the basic question of the subpoena power — denying the district attorney’s request for an injunction.
In January , Willis filed a new motion relying on a wholly separate argument. She argued the 2024 subpoenas were moot and should be quashed or dismissed because the November 2024 election necessarily resulted in a brand new General Assembly being sworn in.
Late last month , Ingram tersely rejected that argument as “absurd .”
In an accompanying order, the judge expressed strong reservations about claims advanced by the district attorney that some of the requested documents were covered by various privileges — and therefore should not be released to investigators under any circumstances.
In her brief, Willis says she and Cowsert have been talking since those orders were issued — and have largely squared the circles.
“Both parties agree that Special Committee does not seek any attorney-client, work product, or other privileged communications in connection with Requests — as these documents are not subject to disclosure,” the filing goes on.
Willis does, however, say there is one possible snag due to “a potential disagreement regarding the scope of these privileges,” but says this would-be problem is an issue for another time.
“Notwithstanding the above, the Parties may not agree as to the scope of these privileges that prevent disclosure; however, both parties agree that any dispute related to scope of these privileges will be litigated later,” the filing continues.
In the ancillary January court order , Ingram warned Willis that her efforts to evade certain elucidated requests in the subpoenas by claiming three kinds of privileges were lacking.
As a result of discussions with the other side, Willis ultimately managed to effectuate some small victories on these points.
Earlier on, Willis claimed the attorney-client privilege, the work-product privilege — a form of privilege closely-related to the attorney-client privilege based on work done specifically in regards to litigation or a trial — and the law enforcement privilege.
Ingram asked pointed questions about each of those privilege claims — most of which concerned the district attorney’s hiring of, and personal relationship with, former special prosecutor Nathan Wade.
In turn, Willis, by way of her attorney, former Georgia governor Roy Barnes, maintained that each privilege would apply to certain documents and communications in the district attorney’s possession. But, after conferring with attorneys for the committee, the parties agreed no privileged information was covered by the subpoenas.
The dispute between the special committee and the embattled prosecutor is now all but over. To that end, Willis asked the court to formalize the state of affairs.
“Petitioner respectfully requests that when the Court enters its order on Petitioner’s objections to the subpoenas, it does so, if practicable, in a Final Order or Final Judgment so that the parties have clarity regarding the timing of their respective appellate rights,” the brief concludes.
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
