News that the grand jury weighing whether to indict President Trump will hold off until next week reminds that District Attorney Alvin Bragg is not operating in a vacuum. Manhattan may be an island, but it increasingly seems that what happens here could be shaped by considerations at Washington, D.C. 

Mr. Bragg must keep his eyes on not one but two branches of the federal government. One is a caucus of House Republicans eager to run interference for the frontrunner for their party’s next presidential nomination. The other is the special counsel prosecutor, Jack Smith, who appears to be rounding the bend on seeking an indictment in his own case against the former president.

For Mr. Bragg, all of this is in addition to the merits of the case he himself is weighing against Mr. Trump, which is at a tense stage. One veteran attorney, James Bopp Jr., who spoke with the Sun, stresses that “any responsible prosecutor would not want to bring a criminal case against a former and possibly future president unless there is a rock-solid basis for the prosecution.”

Mr. Bopp calls New York’s case “novel” and, at best, “flimsy.” He says he hopes that “rational minds are starting to prevail” at the office of the New York D.A. If that assessment is shared by Mr. Smith, it could lead to jockeying between the two prosecutors, one elected by the people of Gotham and the other appointed by Attorney General Garland, and nursing two unrelated cases. 

Mr. Bragg’s first challenge comes from Capitol Hill. Three House Republicans, all committee chairmen, accused Mr. Bragg in a letter of being about to “engage in an unprecedented abuse of prosecutorial authority.” They suggest that it would “erode the confidence in the evenhanded application of justice and unalterably interfere” in the 2024 presidential election.

The representatives — Jim Jordan, James Comer, and Bryan Steil — demand “all documents and communications referring or relating to the New York County District Attorney Office’s receipt and use of federal funds.” It’s the kind of request prosecutors are more accustomed to issuing than receiving. 

Mr. Bragg’s general counsel, Leslie Dubeck, called the requests “unlawful” and an “unprecedented inquiry into a pending local prosecution.” A spokeswoman, Danielle Filson, added that Mr. Bragg will “not be intimidated by attempts to undermine the justice process.” She noted that “our skilled, honest and dedicated lawyers remain hard at work.”

Also at work has been Mr. Smith, and his efforts — at least in respect of the Mar-a-Lago case — are bearing results that could complicate Mr. Bragg’s effort to move first. Late Wednesday, a panel of riders of the appellate circuit for the District of Columbia rejected — with unusual dispatch — an effort by Mr. Trump to block his attorney, Evan Corcoran, from testifying before a grand jury.

Mr. Corocran’s appearance is now set for Friday, and he has reportedly been ordered to provide not only fulsome testimony but also audio files and notes of his conversations with Mr. Trump. There has been no word auguring an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The district judge who first ruled in Mr. Smith’s favor, Beryl Howell — in her last act as chief judge of the District Court —  was persuaded that attorney client privilege did not apply because the government met its burden and demonstrated that the communications were in furtherance of a crime.

If some combination of Mr. Corcoran’s testimony and documents disclose the proverbial smoking gun — that Mr. Trump possessed the requisite state of mind to run afoul of the Espionage Act or other statutes relating to the cache of documents at his Palm Beach mansion — then an indictment would appear both inevitable and imminent. 

Mr. Bragg’s office did not respond to requests for comment.