Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee decided to leave District Attorney Fani Willis on the case against former President Donald Trump, but that was the end of the good news for her.

The judge destroyed Willis in his decision, possibly setting the stage for the case to be delayed until after the election, if it ever happens, and giving the former president’s team a ton of ammunition for an appeal if he is convicted.

But another important part of McAfee’s decision was the possibility that a gag order would be issued against the District Attorney and her team of prosecutors.

“The time may well have arrived for an order preventing the State from mentioning the case in any public forum to prevent prejudicial publicity, but that is not the motion presently before the Court,” he said.

The judge was apparently referencing a racially charged speech that the District Attorney gave at a historically black church on January 14.

“In these public and televised comments, the District Attorney complained that a Fulton County Commissioner ‘and so many others’ questioned her decision to hire SADA Wade. When referring to her detractors throughout the speech, she frequently utilized the plural ‘they,’” the judge said.

“The State argues the speech was not aimed at any of the Defendants in this case. Maybe so. But maybe not. Therein lies the danger of public comment by a prosecuting attorney.

“By including a reference to ‘so many others’ on the heels of Defendant Roman’s motion, which instigated the entire controversy, the District Attorney left that question open for the public to consider,” he said.

But even after he said her speech was “legally improper,” he said that it did not specifically reference the defendants or the charges against them and, therefore, it did not deny them the “opportunity for a fundamentally fair trial.”

“The Court cannot find that this speech crossed the line to the point where the Defendants have been denied the opportunity for a fundamentally fair trial, or that it requires the District Attorney’s disqualification,” he said.

“But it was still legally improper. Providing this type of public comment creates dangerous waters for the District Attorney to wade further into,” he said.