Wednesday’s day off for the Manhattan grand jury tasked with handing up indictments in the case against President Trump for alleged hush money payments could be little reprieve for Mr. Trump’s lawyers, who can hardly afford to let down their guard while their client is under legal siege.   

When it comes to the possibility of a criminal indictment of President Trump, even J.R.R. Tolkien’s Eye of Sauron would have trouble focusing on the sheer range of fronts from which charges could emerge. The former president’s legal struggles are set not only to grow in scale, but also to multiply in scope. 

For Mr. Trump, an obsessive focus on District Attorney Alvin Bragg — whose office is widely expected to indict him in connection with those alleged payments to porn star Stormy Daniels — could leave him flat footed when it comes to cases being built against him by another district attorney, Fani Willis of Georgia, as well as a federal special prosecutor, Jack Smith.

That gathering storm could mean that Mr. Bragg’s case — jerry-rigged from a misdemeanor —  could be the first to land, but pack the weakest punch. The Sun spoke to longtime litigator Harvey Silverglate, who sees the investigation as a way for a “local DA can climb on the anti-Trump express train” and judges that Mr. Bragg “simply wants a part of the action.” If Mr. Trump is to be indicted, Mr. Silverglate, opines, it “has to be more substantial than this petty matter.”   

The Wall Street Journal editorializes that Mr. Bragg is a “provincial progressive,” but that appellation can hardly be slapped on Mr. Smith, who cut his teeth on the global stage prosecuting war crimes at the Hague. He has been tasked by Attorney General Garland with investigating both the cache of documents at Mar-a-Lago and Mr. Trump’s culpability for the events of January 6. 

Mr. Smith appears to be making progress on both fronts. ABC reports that a federal district court judge, Beryl Howell on Friday held that prosecutors can interrogate one of Mr. Trump’s attorneys, Evan Corcoran. The former president had argued that his discussions with the lawyer were protected by attorney-client privilege, which the Supreme Court holds is “one of the oldest recognized” prerogatives.

The privilege, however, gives way before the “crime fraud exception,” and Judge Howell reportedly held in a sealed ruling that Mr. Smith’s team made a “prima facie showing that the former president had committed criminal violations” and that Mr. Trump was party to a “criminal scheme.” Mr. Corcoran will now have to testify more fully before a grand jury, as well as provide relevant materials.   

A spokesman for Mr. Trump responds that the ruling is a “violation of due process” and that if prosecutors had a “real case, they wouldn’t need to play corrupt games with the Constitution.” They have made that case in court, albeit with only fleeting success; a panel of three appellate riders froze the ruling overnight Tuesday, but the challenge was turned away Wednesday afternoon, meaning Mr. Corcoran will have to testify in full. At issue in the case are violations of the Espionage Act and other crimes.

On the January 6 side of Mr. Smith’s portfolio, Mr. Trump could be facing charges ranging from incitement to insurrection — of which he was already acquitted at impeachment, although not in a court of law — to conspiracy to disrupt an official proceeding. His highest profile target for testimony in that case has been Vice President Pence, who vows to fight his subpoena on Speech or Debate Clause grounds. Mr. Trump is invoking executive privilege.

Mr. Trump is also punching back in the Peachtree State, where he filed a motion to quash a special grand jury report summarizing the case against him for criminal interference in the 2020 presidential election. That body found no evidence of election fraud, and recommended perjury charges against some of those who testified before it. Its other recommendations are still sealed.   

The effort to indict Mr. Trump for what he calls his “perfect phone call” to Georgia’s secretary of state, Bradley Raffensperger, is being led by District Attorney Fani Willis — whom he wants replaced — and who is reportedly contemplating deploying racketeering and conspiracy statutes against the former president for that call and other efforts to alter the electoral outcome. 

A jury foreperson, Emily Kohrs, has disclosed that the list of indictments recommended by the special grand jury on which she sits is “not a short one” and that teasing out whom it includes is “not rocket science.” She calls the case a “big freaking deal.” Ms. Willis has said that charging decisions are “imminent.”

Mr. Trump’s lawyers are hoping that loose lips, among other flaws,  sink grand jury reports. In moving to quash, they argue that the entire special grand jury concept is “unconstitutionally vague” and that the presiding judge, Robert McBurney, made “inappropriate and prejudicial comments.” 

Mr. Trump’s advocates also assert that Ms. Willis’s office “violated prosecutorial standards and acted with disregard for the gravity of the circumstances.” It is a copy and paste claim they are likely to make against Mr. Bragg, whenever the Manhattan-based prosecutor makes his move.