The delay of President Trump’s “big announcement” gives us a moment to reread the Justice Department’s memorandum in respect of “Election Year Sensitivities.” Talk about an understatement. The idea is to warn of taking charging actions and making statements involving a person who is running for office or preparing to do so. It’s hard to think of a year when the question — and answer — have been so (how to put it?) timely.

The latest from the 45th president is that an announcement on whether he will stand in 2024 has been delayed until November 15. Just the other day came word that it would be made at a rally last night — the day before election day. That was a bit too much even for Mr. Trump, and, following entreaties from top GOP figures, he apparently thought better of it and teed up the “big announcement” for a week after the midterms.

This announcement is sure to upend — or accelerate — the decision-making going on among President Biden and his camarilla, including Attorney General Garland, over the question of if, or when, to indict the former president on criminal charges. Mr. Trump has been a target of an investigation by the Justice department for months, in part due to January 6, as well as over the documents seized from Mar-a-Lago.

It’s not our intention here to say whether Donald Trump ought to run for president. It is our intention to underscore the danger of interference by the Justice Department in a situation like the one we face today. And to mark the inconsistency, in light of its own regulations — and what General Garland calls the department’s “reputation for fairness, neutrality, and non-partisanship” —  of trying to hand up some kind of charges at this stage of the game. 

General Garland’s memo on the treatment of “politically sensitive individuals” reminds the nearly 10,000 lawyers of the Justice Department that “partisan politics must play no role in the decisions of federal investigators or prosecutors regarding any investigations or criminal charges.” At the time, as USA Today reported, it was seen as a signal that there would be no indictment of Mr. Trump before the midterm elections.

Yet in recent days, the idea that Mr. Biden’s Justice department could find itself prosecuting a political rival appears to have sunk in, leading to consideration of a special counsel. That is the worst option of all. A report in the Times reckons a special prosecutor could “theoretically” shield the Justice Department from accusations of a “partisan attack.” In our view it would be evidence of a partisan attack, designed to dog Mr. Trump for years.

The Times itself reports that appointing a special counsel “could also imply” that General Garland’s department “on its own could not be trusted” to make  “decisions about holding Mr. Trump to account.” Then again, too, the Times suggests Mr. Trump himself is to blame for General Garland’s wishy-washiness, noting “the extent to which the former president has undercut faith in the institution’s ability to fairly investigate him.”

Talk about blaming the victim. General Garland’s memo avers that “prosecutors may never select the timing” of “criminal charges” for “the purpose of affecting any election,” or to give “an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate.” It might well have been a mistake to have delayed handing up charges. It’s hard to see, though, how it could be corrected by rushing to hand up an indictment of Mr. Trump as he prepares to stand again for president.

FDR’s attorney general, Robert Jackson, in his famed speech to federal prosecutors, spoke of the wisdom of barring prosecutors “from engaging in political activities” — so as to “relieve” prosecutors “from the embarrassment” of  any “expectations of political service.” Precisely. As things stand now, General Garland is being pressured to indict a likely opponent of his own boss, the president of the United States. Better to leave it with the people.