Gov. Chris Sununu is fond of invoking “the New Hampshire Way” in touting the state’s (that is, his) achievements. Notwithstanding this claim of exceptionalism, when it comes to political scandals the New Hampshire way seems not so different from the New Jersey way or the Massachusetts way.

To wit: Some of the most powerful figures in New Hampshire — among them two justices of the state Supreme Court, the director of the New Hampshire Port Authority, the attorney general and the governor himself — are now caught up in an unprecedented legal and ethical morass. Here’s a recap for those whose attention has been riveted on the presidential election, Thanksgiving and the season’s first significant snowfall.

Associate Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi has been indicted on, and pleaded not guilty to, two felony and five misdemeanor counts of seeking to improperly exert influence to short-circuit a criminal investigation by the Attorney General’s Office into the activities of her husband, Geno Marconi, long-serving director of the Port Authority.

Geno Marconi is separately charged with witness tampering and has also pleaded not guilty. Both wife and husband are on administrative leave from their respective jobs.

The indictments allege that Hantz Marconi tried in April to secure preferential treatment from Steve Duprey, chairman of the Pease Development Authority and long-time Republican power broker, and then during a meeting on June 6 with Sununu and his legal counsel told them that the investigation of her husband was baseless and that it needed to be wrapped up quickly as she was forced to recuse herself from important cases before the court because of the probe.

For his part, Sununu has said little publicly about the matter since the indictments were handed up except that it’s “incredibly serious.”

Perhaps operating on the theory that the best defense is a good offense, Hantz Marconi and her lawyers have made some interesting contentions in trying to get the indictments dismissed. One is that Supreme Court Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald gave her the green light to seek a meeting with Sununu. Her recollection, according to a court filing, is that MacDonald said: “I think you can do that. You are a constituent and have concerns.”

Moreover, her lawyers contend that because Hantz Marconi met openly with Sununu and did not ask anything particular of him, no corrupt act was committed. In their version, the associate justice was merely exercising her First Amendment rights.

Her lawyers are also seeking to disqualify Attorney General John Formella from the case on the grounds that he has a conflict of interest because of his close personal ties to the governor. They note that Formella served as a private attorney for Sununu and his businesses, worked on his political campaigns and served as legal counsel to the governor before being nominated to be attorney general by Sununu in 2021. (It seems to us that conflicts are inherent when the attorney general is appointed by the governor, as in New Hampshire, rather than being elected.)

As a result of this conflict, Hantz Marconi’s lawyers argue, a special prosecutor should be appointed if the case goes forward.

So the prospect is that should the case come to trial, both Sununu and MacDonald will be key witnesses. A question we would like to ask both is, “What in heaven’s name were you thinking?” If indeed MacDonald signaled to Hantz Marconi that it was fine to seek a meeting with Sununu, this was a serious ethical lapse.

And why would Sununu and his legal counsel agree to such a meeting if they knew that her husband was under investigation? Perhaps the governor routinely meets with constituents whose spouses are in trouble with the law, but we kind of doubt it.

As for Hantz Marconi, why did she want to meet with Sununu if she was not asking him to intervene in some way in her husband’s case? Because she was seeking a sympathetic ear to hear her troubles that only the governor could provide?

Formella also has some questions to answer. Given that the attorney general’s lawyers frequently appear before the state Supreme Court, did he not consider that the prosecution of an associate justice would be much better left in the hands of an outside counsel?

Altogether, the picture that has emerged is that of a small world inhabited by people whose great power is not matched by an equally strong ethical compass. If there is a New Hampshire Way, it should be better than this.