President Trump’s denunciation over the weekend of New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, as a “complete and total disaster” underscores that the threat of legal prosecution she faces is growing — even as the 47th president is pushing for her resignation. Could a quid pro quo be in the offing where Ms. James forfeits her job but protects her freedom?

Ms. James, New York’s top law enforcement official, faces peril from two investigations launched by Attorney General Pam Bondi’s DOJ. The first centers on allegations of mortgage fraud. Those charges are being weighed by the same interim United States attorney, Lindsey Halligan, who sought and secured an indictment against a former director of the FBI, James Comey.

Ms. Halligan is now the top federal prosecutor in the Northern District of Virginia, which comprises Norfolk, where Ms. James owns a modest home. The director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, William Pulte, alleges that Mr. James listed that property as her primary residence even though she was required by law, due to her job, to live in New York. ABC News reports that Ms. Halligan’s predecessor, Erik Siebert, resisted charging Mr. Comey or Ms. James. Mr. Trump forced Mr. Siebert to resign, citing the strong support Mr. Siebert had from Virginia’s two Democratic senators.

Mr. Trump’s denunciations of Ms. James come as MSNBC reports that a powerful federal prosecutor in Virginia, Elizabeth Yusi, “sees no probable cause to believe James engaged in mortgage fraud.” That means that she will recommend that her boss, Ms. Halligan, decline to charge Ms. James. Ms. Halligan decided to proceed with the case against Mr. Comey under similar objections. She ultimately signed the affidavit herself.

Now Mr. Trump takes to Truth Social to opine: “Corrupt Letitia James is costing New York State Hundreds of Billions of Dollars in lost business. No company or individual wants to be there, knowing that she’s the ‘Attorney General.’” He added that Ms. James “tried running against Kathy Hochul for Governor, and only got 1% of the Vote in Polls, and QUIT …  “Until this ‘SCUM’ is removed from the Attorney General’s Office, no company will move to New York.”

The possibility of Ms. James departing her post was first raised by the special attorney for mortgage fraud, Ed Martin. He is also the pardon attorney, the director of the “Weaponization Working Group” founded  by Ms. Bondi, and the erstwhile interim United States attorney for the District of Columbia. Mr. Martin, in a letter to Ms. James’s attorney, contended that her “resignation from office would give the people of New York and America more peace than proceeding. I would take this as an act of good faith.”

Days after that suggestion Mr. Martin was pacing outside of Ms. James’s Brooklyn brownstone, scoping out the exterior. Mr. Pulte’s criminal referral alleges that Ms. James listed the property as containing four units rather than five as part of an effort to falsify “bank documents and property records to acquire government backed assistance and loans and more favorable loan terms.” Mr. Pulte also alleges that Ms. James listed her father as her husband on mortgage documents.  

That offer suggests that a quid pro quo could be in the works — at least in inchoate form — whereby the possible case against Ms. James is dropped in exchange for Ms. James’s resignation. The prosecutor, though, has struck a defiant tone. She was elected as attorney general in 2018 on the promise to shine a “bright light into every dark corner” of Mr. Trump’s “real estate dealings.”

Ms. James made good on that promise when she secured a $500 million civil fraud verdict against Mr. Trump, his two oldest sons, and their family business. That judgment was delivered without the benefit of a trial by a judge, Arthur Engoron, who locked horns with Mr. Trump and eventually imposed a gag order on him. Judge Engoron found a quality of fraud that “shocked the conscience.”

That judgment — but not the underlying verdict of “liable” — was reversed by New York’s intermediate appellate court, which found that it was so gargantuan as to run afoul of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “excessive fines.” The appeals court also kept in place Judge Engoron’s raft of punitive measures against the Trump Organization, which include restrictions on Trumps’ ability to work in New York and the imposition of an independent monitor to chaperone their compliance with the law.

Both Ms. James and Mr. Trump have appealed that verdict. Ms. James also faces legal exposure over her decision to bring the civil fraud case against Mr. Trump. The DOJ is investigating the prosecutor for violating the president’s civil rights. While it is not yet known whether that investigation is civil or criminal, the statute at issue, deprivation of rights, can be charged as a felony.

The Trump administration’s interest in investigating Ms. James for mortgage fraud and civil rights abuses comes with a hint of irony: A central pillar of her fraud case against Mr. Trump was over a corporate real estate version of mortgage fraud. And like many Democratic attorneys general, Ms. James sued multiple law enforcement bodies for violating civil rights of black people and other minorities.  

The suggestion of a quid pro quo has been made with respect to Mr. Trump’s dealings with another New York official, Mayor Eric Adams. The acting United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, Danielle Sassoon, accused the DOJ of extending such a deal to Hizzoner, whereby criminal bribery charges would be dropped in exchange for cooperation on immigration.