With all the shenanigans going on within — and without — the office of Manhattan’s district attorney, Alvin Bragg, how in the world is President Trump going to get a fair trial in New York County? The question bedevils us as the inner workings of the prosecutor’s office tumble into the public prints before so much as a single indictment has been handed up. What a disgraceful, unseemly, and politicized affair this has become.

The latest development involves Mr. Bragg’s whiplash-inducing volte-face on whether to conduct a criminal probe of Mr. Trump. A new grand jury is weighing whether the former president broke any laws over the payment of, as the New York Times puts it,  “hush money to a porn star during his 2016 campaign.” A previous investigation of Mr. Trump by Mr. Bragg’s office fizzled out early last year, prompting two of the DA’s deputies to resign. 

At the time, Mr. Bragg had just taken office and had developed “serious doubts” about the case being developed against Mr. Trump. The case centered on whether Mr. Trump broke the law “by inflating the value of his assets in the annual statements,” the Times reported. There was just one problem with the case that seemed to worry Mr. Bragg: Where were the victims of Mr. Trump’s alleged lawbreaking? 

Even if Mr. Trump had, as the prosecutors said, overstated the value of the properties he was borrowing against, the Times said, “Mr. Trump’s lenders had not lost money on the loans but had in fact profited from them.” So the prosecutors “switched gears.” The new plan “was to charge Mr. Trump with conspiracy and falsifying business records.” Yet on that, too, Mr. Bragg was reportedly hesitant to proceed. 

That’s when the deputies, Mark Pomerantz and Carey Dunne, quit. Quietly into the night, though, they did not go. Mr. Pomerantz penned a letter to Mr. Bragg saying that Mr. Trump “has a long history of fabricating information relating to his personal finances” and “lying about his assets.” It concluded that there is “no doubt about whether” Mr. Trump “committed crimes — he did.” No need, it seems, for such daintiness as a jury.

Lamenting that the probe “has been suspended indefinitely,” Mr. Pomerantz conceded to Mr. Bragg that it was “your decision to make.” Nor did he, he wrote to Mr. Bragg, “question your authority to make it.” He even granted that his boss “made it sincerely.” Even so, “a decision made in good faith may nevertheless be wrong.” He called Mr. Bragg’s decision “misguided and completely contrary to the public interest.” 

It’s no surprise that a high-minded public servant like Mr. Pomerantz decided to embroider on this theme with a book due out next week. He “was a retired lawyer living a calm suburban life,” the publisher explains, when he was asked to join the investigation of Mr. Trump. Yet the expected “indictment never happened,” and the book purports to explain how “Trump manages to dance between the raindrops of accountability.” 

Mr. Bragg, the Times reports, has complained to the publisher “expressing concern that the book might disclose grand jury information” or “interfere with the investigation.” It’s unclear what, if any, further steps are planned to stop the book from hitting shelves. The prosecution, though, appears to be as flimsy as ever. The criminal violation being weighed, the Times says, is usually a misdemeanor — falsifying business records.

“To make it a felony,” the Times reports, Mr. Bragg’s office would  need to prove Mr. Trump faked the records in order to violate state election law — an “untested” and therefore “risky” tactic. It reminds of Justice Robert Jackson’s warning that “the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies” in the prospect of law enforcement becoming “personal.” How else to account for the Manhattan DA’s office’s Ahab-like obsession with Mr. Trump?