The other fear which should have held back Bragg is that business records mismanagement and even campaign finance violations are typically dealt with via either administrative penalties or fines. Most of the laws Trump may have broken require some sort of intent to do wrong. In other words, Trump would have had to have taken the steps with Stormy not just for his ego or his presidential library or as some crude souvenir of virility but with the specific intent to commit harm.

Proving a state of guilty mind — mens rea — will be the crux of any prosecution. What was Trump thinking at the time? “It should be clear,” says the New York Law Journal, “Cohen’s plea, obtained under pressure and with the ultimate aim of developing a case against the president, cannot in and of itself establish whether Trump had the requisite mental state.” If DA Bragg has other key witnesses beyond Stormy and Cohen, he has not signaled as such.

The final questions are probably the most important: Bragg knows what the law says. If he understands the chances of a serious conviction are slight, why would he take the case to court? Why would he have gone to the Grand Jury at all, his predecessor and the Department of Justice having both passed on this case? No one is above the law, but that means politics must not trump clean hands jurisprudence.