President Trump’s joining of a motion in Georgia to disqualify the district attorney of Fulton County, Fani Willis, and her special prosecutor and alleged boyfriend, Nathan Wade, and dismiss the charges they brought ratchets up the tension on those scandal snagged attorneys. 

The 45th president joins one of his 18 co-defendants in Ms. Willis’ sprawling racketeering case, Michael Roman, in alleging that Mr. Wade’s appointment was driven by his amorous relationship with Ms. Willis rather than any relevant expertise. Mr. Wade, who has been paid $650,000 for his services, has never prosecuted a felony case, let alone a racketeering one.

Mr. Trump, though, did not only piggyback on Mr. Roman’s claims, to which Ms. Willis owes a response by February 2. He also added one of his own — that Ms. Willis’s response to the allegations of impropriety, which has taken the form of accusations of racism on the part of her critics, is itself a violation of Georgia law. 

Mr. Trump argues that Ms. Willis has gone astray not only in her personal and professional relations with Mr. Wade, but also in how she has countered them. He maintains that her denials “reinforce and amplify the ‘appearance of impropriety’ in her judgment and prosecutorial conduct.” The laws of Fulton County ban not only the substance of partiality, but also its appearance.   

The filing, which bears the names of Mr. Trump’s attorneys, Steven Sadow and Jennifer Little, alleges that Ms. Willis “inappropriately injected race into the case and stoked racial animus” when she delivered a sermon at Big Bethel AME Church to mark Martin Luther King Jr. Day. In that oration, she accused her foes of “playing the race card” and defended Mr. Wade’s credentials as “impeccable.”

Georgia’s state bar codes instruct its lawyers to “refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused.” The worry is that statements of this kind will prejudice the jury. The Sixth Amendment promises “an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.”  

Mr. Trump’s lawyers write that Ms. Willis did just that by mounting a “glaring, flagrant and calculated effort to foment racial bias into this case by publicly denouncing the defendants for somehow daring to question her decision to hire a Black man.” For the defendants, a jury pool drawn from ultramarine Fulton County was always going to be a challenge. 

The core of Mr. Roman’s motion, which Mr. Trump now endorses, is that Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade “have acquired a personal interest and stake in Mr. Roman’s conviction, thus depriving Mr. Roman of his right to a fundamentally fair trial.” One measure of that interest are receipts that have emerged from Mr. Wade’s divorce trial, which indicate that the district attorney and the special prosecutor took trips together.

Ms. Willis’ response to the swelling allegations against her will now require countering Mr. Trump’s characterization of her  “provocative and inflammatory extrajudicial racial comments, made in a widely publicized speech at a historical Black church in Atlanta, and cloaked in repeated references to God.” The district attorney called herself a “very flawed, hardheaded and imperfect servant” of the Almighty. That’s where she also raised the issue of racial bias.