The ruling that the district attorney of Fulton County, Fani Willis, can prosecute President Trump notwithstanding a “tremendous lapse in judgment” only if she fires her special prosecutor and former boyfriend, Nathan Wade, could set up an appeal that will push the trial even further into the future.

Mr. Wade, who has never prosecuted a felony case before the district attorney named him special prosecutor, resigned on Friday afternoon. He writes in a letter to Ms. Willis that he is “offering my resignation in the interest of democracy, in dedication to the American public, and to move this case forward as quickly as possible.” He declares that the “furtherance of the rule of law and democracy is and has always been the North Star of our combined efforts.”

Judge Scott McAfee ruled that “disqualification of a constitutional officer” is unnecessary when a” less drastic and sufficiently remedial option is available.” He found that the defendants seeking to disqualify Ms. Willis failed to show that she “acquired an actual conflict of interest in this case through her personal relationship and recurring travels with her lead prosecutor.”

The judge, though, detects an “odor of mendacity” in the behavior of the prosecutorial pair  and find that Ms. Willis’s romantic relationship with Mr. Wade presented a “significant appearance of impropriety that infects the current structure of the prosecution team.”  Judge McAfee rules that the “financial gain flowing from her relationship with Wade was not a motivating factor on the part of the District Attorney to indict and prosecute this case.”

Judge McAfee does find that Ms. Willis’ “prosecution is encumbered by an appearance of impropriety” because of her relationship with Mr. Wade, to whom her office has paid more than $650,000 and with whom she has taken several foreign and domestic trips. The judge notes the “regular and loose” exchange of money between them and the possibility of a perception that they are still romantically entangled. Jettisoning Mr. Wade would, the judge reckons, be an appropriate “remedy.”

Judge McAfee also called Ms. Willis’ speech at Big Bethel AME Church “improper” and marred by “racial aspersions.” He warns of the “danger of public comment by a prosecuting attorney.” In that oration, she accused the defendants in her case of “playing the race card.” Judge McAfee noted that such rhetoric signals entry into “dangerous waters,” but did not find that it  “crossed the line to the point where the Defendants have been denied the opportunity for a fundamentally fair trial.” 

The judge reflects that “whether this case ends in convictions, acquittals, or something in between,the result should be one that instills confidence in the process.” That means that even if the record is, in his view, “insufficient” for a finding of an actual conflict of interest, the “appearance of impropriety remains and must be handled” by the departure of either Ms. Willis or Mr. Wade. 

An attorney for Mr. Trump, Steven Sadow, said in a statement that “we will use all legal options available as we continue to fight to end this case, which should never have been brought in the first place.” That could telegraph that an appeal is already in the works. In particular, he criticizes Judge McAfee for not affording “appropriate significance to the prosecutorial misconduct” of Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade. Both Judge McAfee and Ms. Willis will face primaries this fall, and are looking to keep their jobs.

________

This article has been updated from the bulldog.