A reverse in a campaign of lawfare.

New developments.  From 2 Prosecutors Leading N.Y. Trump Inquiry Resign, Clouding Case’s Future by William K. Rashbaum, Ben Protess, Jonah E. Bromwich, Kate Christobek and Nate Schweber.  The Subheading is "The resignations came after the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, was said to have expressed doubts about the case."

President Trump's opponents have been conducting large-scale law-fare against him since at least 2015 when Trump announced his candidacy.  Lawsuits and congressional investigations against him have been a mainstay since then, through his 2016 victory, all through his administration, and now well into his post-presidency.

Being a real estate magnate in New York City, regardless of his policies or him as a politician, I have long thought that he might be especially vulnerable arising out of New York City real estate deals.  

But that has never happened.  The actual cases which have been brought have all seemed politically motivated fishing expeditions with only marginal credibility.  Again, not assessing the probability that real legal wrong-doing might have occurred.  It's just that what is legally pursued seems dramatically weak tea.

In this most recent wrinkle:

The two prosecutors leading the Manhattan district attorney’s investigation into former President Donald J. Trump and his business practices abruptly resigned on Wednesday amid a monthlong pause in their presentation of evidence to a grand jury, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

The unexpected development came not long after the high-stakes inquiry appeared to be gaining momentum and now throws its future into serious doubt.

The prosecutors, Carey R. Dunne and Mark F. Pomerantz, submitted their resignations because the new Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, indicated to them that he had doubts about moving forward with a case against Mr. Trump, the people said.

Mr. Pomerantz confirmed in a brief interview that he had resigned but declined to elaborate. Mr. Dunne declined to comment.

Without Mr. Bragg’s commitment to move forward, the prosecutors late last month postponed a plan to question at least one witness before the grand jury, one of the people said. They have not questioned any witnesses in front of the grand jury for more than a month, essentially pausing their investigation into whether Mr. Trump inflated the value of his assets to obtain favorable loan terms from banks.

The precise reasons for Mr. Bragg’s pullback are unknown, and he has made few public statements about the status of the inquiry since taking office, but the prosecutors had encountered a number of challenges in pursuing Mr. Trump. Notably, they had thus far been unable to persuade any Trump Organization executives to cooperate and turn on Mr. Trump.

In a statement responding to the resignations of the prosecutors, a spokeswoman for Mr. Bragg said that he was “grateful for their service” and that the investigation was ongoing.

Time is running out for this grand jury, whose term is scheduled to expire in April. Prosecutors can ask jurors to vote to extend their term but generally avoid doing so. They also are often reluctant to impanel a new grand jury after an earlier one has heard testimony, because witnesses could make conflicting statements if asked to testify again.

And without Mr. Dunne, a high-ranking veteran of the office who has been closely involved with the inquiry for years, and Mr. Pomerantz, a leading figure in New York legal circles who was enlisted to work on it, the yearslong investigation could peter out.

This is hard to interpret as political shenanigans.  New York City is profoundly blue and the District Attorney is a Soros-backed DA.  Hard to imagine any framing that involves the main protagonists wanting to go soft on Trump.

A straight reading would suggest that there was just never much evidence to support the allegations.

An alternative, and perhaps this is the more plausible, is that Democrats are clearing the decks for a bad election cycle.  I imagine there is not much more or less corroborating evidence as when the original allegations were made.  Absent any accumulated hard evidence, perhaps the Democratic Party simply does not want to be seen to perpetrating unwarranted law-fare.  

Between Afghanistan, inflation, an ever-tightening housing market, serial reversals on the Covid-19 policies, Ukraine and other international reverses, supply chain woes, etc. perhaps all this is clearing the political battlefield.  If I were a Democrat and I had a Grand Jury case to make that was both weak and might be decided anytime between July and November, perhaps I would not want that to be additional fuel for the political bonfire.

All speculation, but it is an interesting development.