If we do a recording test, we should each say the word “unprecedented” just to get it out of the way. Check the box. [Lydia laughs.]

From the New York Times, I’m Lydia Polgreen.

I’m Ross Douthat.

I’m Michelle Cottle.

And I’m Carlos Lozada.

OK, so Tuesday was the day that, after all of the speculating and waiting and motorcades and helicopters, we finally found out what is in the indictment in New York.

And the broad contours are what we thought. There were 34 felony counts that all tied to falsifying business records. So basically bookkeeping fraud. Now, the problem is, in order for those to be charged as felonies rather than misdemeanors, they have to be in service of another crime.

And this is where things get complicated. It looks like one of the possibilities is that they’re gonna try and tie it to election violations of federal and state election law, and also possibly, maybe, falsifying state tax statements.

So it’s not a straightforward case. It’s not a slam dunk. It is extremely complicated. So all of the things that I worried about going into this, I’m still really worried about. And I’m hoping that one of you can convince me that this is a good idea on the whole.

So go, everybody, hit me.

Well, don’t start with me, because I thought — I don’t know what our profanity policy is, you can bleep this out — but I was prepared for this to be [EXPLETIVE], and I’m still sort of staggered by what [EXPLETIVE] it is.

I had been doing the whole like, look, we don’t know how this will change the Republican primary, who knows how this will work out, but right now I feel like this is a psyop on Republican base voters, and it’s gonna work. And it’s gonna work precisely because it’s such nonsense.

Like, if you are primed to believe that Donald Trump is a persecuted martyr figure, this is just persecution. And Republican primary voters are going to respond to it. You can see it so far in the polling that we have — by rallying to Trump — and it’s bad for the Republic, good for Democrats who want Trump to be nominated, and a bad idea all around.

OK, I can’t take any more of this. Somebody save me from Ross’s analysis here. Lydia, maybe?

Personally, I can’t save you from the trough of despair that Ross has frankly, justifiably, dragged us into.

Look, the comparison that’s often made is getting Al Capone for his taxes. That at the end of the day, he needed to get got. I think there are bigger questions here, right? Does Donald Trump need to get got? He certainly has lots and lots of other people looking into his misdeeds.

I’ve always been far more interested in the election interference case that’s developing in Georgia, as well as the documents case. And it was interesting to listen to Trump’s strangely low-energy speech after he got back to Mar-a-Lago. He really walked through each of the arrows that are aimed against him, like, “Oh, this prosecutor is racist.” You know, “This is an absolute [EXPLETIVE] interpretation of the Presidential Records Act.”

And so it was interesting to see that he’s really feeling the heat. And I think that that’s because even if this particular case is [EXPLETIVE], there are a lot of other cases that are lining up that I think pose real threats to him, to his image.

The other thing that I’ll say is: All of this could help him win the Republican primary. That is entirely the case. But it’s certainly not gonna help him win the general election.

And I think that that is the sort of hump that he’s gotta overcome. How do you thread that needle? Given everything that we’re seeing in the politics right now, and the ways in which the politics of abortion, for example, swung the Wisconsin race. It feels like an incredibly unfavorable battleground for him overall. So big picture, peril for Trump seems actually quite high, even if this particular charge is just not gonna go anywhere.

I want us to get a little deeper into what Lydia raised about the other cases. Because that’s the thing you’re hearing a lot. Even people who you know are excited to kinda go after Trump feel that this is not “the right case” to start with. And that there are others that are more kind of obvious and explainable instances of Trump misdeeds.

And I get that, we have all these different legal processes that are ongoing, and you look at each of them separately. There’s the Georgia case: Trump asking election authorities for more votes. There’s Jan. 6. There’s the boxes hoax. There’s the documents case. And there’s this one.

Setting the legalities aside and just watching it as a citizen, there’s a way in which all of these are a collective pattern of behavior on the part of Donald Trump, and that’s the way I kind of look at them all. I’m not a lawyer, you know, I’m not one of those former prosecutors on TV, right.

So I look at this first case. The faking the business records, the potential tax violations or campaign finance violations. Those are kind of low-level instances of bending the rules to try to help your campaign. Or frankly, just not to lose as badly. This was happening at the same time as the “Access Hollywood” stuff was coming out.

Then you get to the Ukraine episode that led to the first impeachment. That’s an effort to deploy American national security policy to boost your chances for re-election. The phone conversation with the Georgia officials — that’s trying to reverse an election that you lost. And finally, Jan. 6 is an effort to hold on to power by force.

This is a progression of Trump’s transgressions. This first case, though the weaker, feels like part of that. And each escape from accountability just kind of leads to a bigger ask the next time. And so that’s kind of how I see them. I get that out of the gate, this one feels like B.S. I won’t use the words like Ross and Lydia —

Ross is so vulgar.

It’s just gonna be all bleeps.

Yeah. But when you look at the long arc of Trump in office and all these different investigations, it feels like they’re kind of of a piece. Like they sort of build on each other — to me, at least.

The problem that I think the prosecutors are facing, and anybody who tries to hold Trump accountable is facing, is that he now has a narrative to counter that. Which is what we saw last night during his Mar-a-Lago grievance fest, where he has his tantrum on the theme of, “I am politically persecuted, so whatever anybody accuses me of is just part of this witch hunt.”

So by that standard, if you have bought into his fundamental narrative, every single episode of his wrongdoing or any attempt to hold him accountable is just more proof that he is this poor, tragic victim that the haters are out to get.

Now, the question here is: How does it impact the party as a whole, especially with him trying for the presidency again? I mean, this is what they will be dragging with them for the next year, at least. And it ain’t gonna play well outside of the base.

Well, yeah, I think Lydia’s absolutely right that there’s no reason to look at things like this, even a single indictment — let alone multiple indictments — as something that helps him with the kind of voters who swung to him and then swung to Joe Biden. The Trump persecution narrative, it doesn’t play with swing voters. The polling that I’ve seen — I think there was a poll that basically said 60 percent of America thinks the indictment is justified and a number of those people also think it’s politically motivated. But there are people who are just so done with Trump that it’s like, I don’t care if it's politically motivated, he’s gotta be guilty of something, right?

Oh, so it’s justified because it’s politically motivated. [All laugh.]

Well, I think the challenge for your narrative, Carlos, is that Trump is actually really good at tap dancing on the borderlands of illegality without sort of nakedly hurling himself into the abyss of definite criminality [laughing]. If I can —

There’s an image, Ross.

There’s an image, right? And so I do think that in each of these cases, some of them may be stronger, like the evidence that Trump clearly violated the Presidential Records Act may be sort of stronger and more direct. But even in that case, you’ll have Trump saying: “What? You’re gonna put me in jail because I took some boxes to Mar-a-Lago?”

Oh, no, no. Last night he was suggesting they were gonna shoot him, Ross. Did you see this? Because it’s the Espionage Act. They’re gonna shoot him for this.

Well, but the reality is that just as there’s a pattern that Carlos describes of Trump’s behavior, there is also a pattern of what people who are determined to get Trump are likely to do. But you do have a pattern of the creative use of statutes against Trump and his allies in ways that they are not used against other politicians.

Like, if you don’t think Bill Clinton should have been in prison for perjury — even though Clinton clearly did break the law and clearly did perjure himself — you’re not gonna think that Donald Trump should be in jail for paying some money to Stormy Daniels, I don’t think.

I think that the likelihood that Trump will actually be behind bars as a result of any of these feels pretty remote. Even if he were convicted of these Class E felonies, for a first-time offender — and who would’ve thought, Donald Trump has never been arrested before. Even though he’s had this long, long history in New York City of always, always managing to wriggle out of trouble.

He knows where the line is.

He knows where the line is. And so I think the idea that he would find himself behind bars for, really, any of these offenses feels pretty far-fetched to me. Although maybe others disagree.

Do others disagree? Because if not, why are we doing this?

Wait, wait. Do you mean, do we think he’s gonna wind up in jail or prison? No, I don’t.

If we don’t think he’s gonna end up in jail for any of these potential prosecutions, then is the purpose of the prosecution a symbolic conviction?

No, I think that there are punishments that are different from — I mean, listen, I can come out now as something of an abolitionist, and I think that the criminal —

This is good. We need the prison abolitionist case for leniency towards Donald Trump. I’m serious. [All laugh.]

No, I mean, yeah, I don’t actually think that prison is the solution to the problem of Donald Trump.

The problem of a nonviolent first-time offender. Absolutely.

Yes. No, I completely agree. I think, as a nonviolent first-time offender, that he should absolutely not go to prison. I don’t wish that on anyone.

But to say that because Trump may not go to prison is not a reason to explore any of these cases is letting the outcome dictate what we do with the process in a country where, presumably, the rule of law should apply to all.

When Donald Trump incites an insurrection, when Donald Trump attempts to strong-arm Georgia election officials to find 11,780 more votes, I mean, that has to have legal consequences, even if it doesn’t have political consequences.

Well, I think there is a distinction to be drawn between the New York case and, say, Georgia, and we can pretend that the law is the law or whatever, but the New York case is incredibly convoluted and complicated, and in terms of trying to explain it to the American public or a jury or whatever — Georgia just seems like a kind of much easier sell.

And prosecutors all the time make these decisions about what they think they’ll be able to prove or what cases they can make. I mean, that’s part of being a prosecutor. And I do think that the New York D.A. has kind of — not overstepped, necessarily, but just kind of really gone looking for something to charge him with.

No, I completely agree with that aspect of the weakness of this particular case, which is not, I think, inconsistent with saying that I think this is all a pattern of behavior. And that’s not a narrative that I think is out in the world. That’s my own little personal narrative [laughing].

But speaking to the weakness of the case — I did something which I’m sure you all did last night. I went back and reread portions of Michael Cohen’s wonderful memoir “Disloyal.” [All laugh.]

Oh my god, Carlos!

I did the same thing, Carlos.

I read key passages to my wife.

That is romantic.

Oh god, that’s so sweet. No, I mean —

That may be grounds for divorce, Lydia.

There’s like two things in that book that I wanna highlight. One is just atmospheric. And there’s this great scene when Michael Cohen is first working for Trump and he’s walking through the atrium of Trump Tower with his new boss. And people just throng to Trump. This is like, at the height of “The Apprentice,” I think, and just autographs and mobs and selfies. And Trump winks at Cohen and whispers in his ear, he’s like, “Michael, this is what Trump is all about.” [Lydia laughs, Michelle scoffs.]

And the thing is this! Here! Right now, like, yesterday, this is what Trump is all about. The grievance, the legal battle, the fundraising off the grievance and the legal battle — the attention, I feel like it just kind of plays into all his strengths.

The other thing that is interesting in the statement of fact — which is obviously far more interesting than the indictment, which is just the same paragraph over and over again — the statement of fact draws that link very clearly and says, the defendant didn’t want this information out in public because he was concerned about the effect it would have on his candidacy. And that’s what makes it like an election campaign contribution, all that kind of stuff.

What’s interesting when you read Michael Cohen’s book is that, yes, they’re kind of worried about the impact of the Stormy Daniels stuff on the campaign, but Trump seems just as worried or even more so about the impact on Melania, which makes you think this is the kind of thing he would’ve done regardless.

When he’s talking to David Pecker and Michael Cohen about what’s going on, they worry about the campaign, but Trump also says, “And you know, upstairs” — because he’s talking about Melania [Lydia laughs], and then later, you know, he’s telling Cohen —

This is actually important, ’cause this is what gets him off, Carlos.

No, no, no, no. Absolutely.

Because there is evidence, right, that says, look, oh, he talked about whether maybe if we delay the payments till after the election, we won’t have to pay it. And that is cited as evidence that this was just political, but right there in Cohen’s book you have proof that it was a mixture, and as long as it’s a mixture, I think he’s off the hook. You have exonerated Donald Trump right on this podcast. [All laugh.]

There’s an even better passage where Trump says to Cohen, 130,000 is a lot less than I would have to pay Melania. If it comes out, I’m not sure how it would play with my supporters. I bet they’d think it’s cool that I slept with a porn star. [All laugh.]

Oh, dear god. I mean, he’s not wrong.

Now, I’m not taking Michael Cohen’s book as a verbatim legit transcript of what actually was said. But you know, he’s a key witness here. And that’s a kind of a complicated thing that the statement of fact just elides.

It’s funny, as we’re talking about all these various cases and Trump’s personal conduct and all of that, I think a lot about the RICO statute, right? Which was created in order to be able to go after mobsters who had all these layers between them and ways of, like, wriggling out of accountability for this, that and the other thing.

And I’ve been thinking about what a RICO statute to deal with a political figure like Donald Trump might look like. And I actually think that the RICO statute might be elections — that the way that you legitimately defeat someone who commits these kinds of relatively minor but, add them all up, pretty nasty crimes is, is actually through making sure that he doesn’t get into the office again via buying an election?

And that’s what we did, right?

And that’s what we did.

America went to the polls and they did. Now, it is a problem when that quasi-mobster then promotes the idea that it was all rigged and tries to bring the country down.

But brought it down unsuccessfully, right? And I think he clearly thinks that getting back into office is a way to protect himself against future prosecution, which may or may not be the case. But it does seem to me that, of all of the institutions that seem to have learned nothing from the last time we did this, had this dance with Donald Trump — I don't know about you guys, but watching Trump’s plane, kind of get the full Ginsburg on, you know, [laughing] CNN and BBC, and every channel tracking every movement, and watching his S.U.V. —

That motorcade was very Logan Roy.

It was very Logan Roy.

So I defended that coverage on our favorite website, Twitter.com. Just on the grounds that, like, it is in fact a historically unprecedented thing for a former president to be indicted, it is the kind of thing that you would expect cable news to cover.

It’s different than covering, like, a random Trump rally for three hours, the way they did in 2016. [Lydia laughs.] But yeah, then when you read the actual indictment, you feel like everyone is collaborating on this in some way.

To go back to one of your arguments, Carlos, and to sort of link it to what Lydia was just saying, the reason you want elections rather than jury verdicts as the way to settle certain things that are in the borderlands of illegality is just that there are cycles that get started in countries that are hard to stop. Where it becomes sort of normal to be prosecuted once you’re out of office.

Like, I don’t think there’s any question that a Republican prosecutor in Arkansas could have come up with a case this strong to bring against Bill Clinton on some grounds, Whitewater, you know, something related to it. Maybe I’m exaggerating, but I think based on this standard, Clinton could have been prosecuted.

Although, to be fair, they did spend a lot of time trying to prove something in Whitewater. I mean, they spent an awful lot of money and effort on a crappy land deal. It’s not like he got off with that one unscathed.

No, I’m not saying Clinton got off at all. I’m just saying the pattern of reciprocal indictments is a political problem.

Absolutely. They’re going to impeach Joe Biden if they have a minute of space. [Carlos laughs]

Well, we’re already into it. I mean, that train has sailed, right. We’re already into the world [laughing] of reciprocal impeachments, I’m sure. Although they haven’t impeached Biden yet.

Yeah. They haven’t done it yet. I mean, they have so many other things they’re trying to do, you know? Shut down the federal government, et cetera, that are more urgent and pressing.

Yes. They’re so busy.

It’s a big list. [laughing]

They’re so busy. Just to come back to the global examples. I mean, this is a thing that I’ve been sort of in the middle of because I wrote a very critical column about Narendra Modi, the prime minister of India, and his kind of ever-escalating assaults on democracy. And there was a story that just came out that Rahul Gandhi, the sort of scion of the Gandhi family that represents the opposition in India, he’s been charged with a trumped-up charge — I forget. It’s something related to insulting someone, basically, in a way that is apparently illegal in India.

And he basically is gonna be thrown out of parliament for this and will be ineligible to run for prime minister, because of this. And I wrote some scathing tweets about this because this is a thing that’s happening in a lot of kind of elective autocracies, where you have governments that are basically using the courts and using criminal charges to go after their opponents and disqualify them from running, also happening in Turkey.

And a lot of the people in India who really support Modi, and really did not like my column or anything about me and my whole political deal, sort of came after me on Twitter and said, well, where is your column despairing about American democracy because of these charges against Trump? As if this was some kind of a gotcha.

And I think that it’s a serious question that’s worth engaging with, right? I mean, you know, there’s a very different thing happening in America, and we still, I think, do have an independent judiciary. We still do have systems and standards, and we also don’t jail people or disqualify them for public office, as a matter of course, based on relatively minor convictions, right? Like, it’s not as if Trump was convicted of a misdemeanor and then he can’t run for president. That’s just not a thing.

But it is interesting to think about the way in which the world is watching us and what lessons will be taken from this episode.

Well, right. And the problem is, if you are a supporter of Donald Trump, or even not a supporter of Donald Trump, yes, this isn’t the same thing as the leader — it’s not the same thing as Joe Biden personally directing the prosecution of Trump. But this does look like a political prosecution of a former leader who the American establishment fears and despises.

Like, that is how it looks, right? At the very least, it looks like how France prosecuted Marine Le Pen, right? For, you know, offensive tweets. Which is something that happened. It’s distinct from the sort of Modi, Erdogan style. But there is clearly a pattern of sort of “lawfare” used by establishments against threatening populists in the Western world.

And this seems much more like an example of that to me than an example of the system of justice functioning in some neutral way that even someone who voted for Trump could find comprehensible. It just doesn’t look that way.

Trump keeps talking about how, you know, this is what happens in, you know, quote unquote “third world countries.” I mean, it does, but it doesn’t just happen there. Look at Netanyahu, what he is going through. Berlusconi? God, I mean, that deserves its own whole conversation.

In France, it’s also been Sarkozy and Chirac, though I don’t believe they’ve served prison time, they have been convicted. Brazil, Lula came back. That’s a developing nation, but Brazil, Lula came back from prison and won the presidency again.

I’m from Peru. I became a U.S. citizen maybe eight years ago. We’ve had an extreme version of this in Peru. I believe we’re on our 11th president of the century, which, if you do the math, isn’t how it should work when you have five-year terms for presidents. [Michelle laughs.]

There was a time when we patted ourselves on the back by saying that like, look, we hold our leaders accountable for the things they do. But it’s also, I mean, it’s just such an obvious example of a broken party system and a political system that is having a huge crisis of legitimacy. And prosecuting and convicting your former presidents, I think, though, is maybe partially a cause, but is more a symptom of that larger crisis.

And that’s the threat. That this notion of reciprocal impeachments and prosecutions means it’s sort of hovering there. At the same time, does that mean that you just don’t?

So what I’m taking from all this is that Trump has pointed out that America is not special. And he has put us more in line with kind of how things go elsewhere. So, so much for American exceptionalism in this case.

Oh! Such a bummer.

I mean, good riddance, I would say. Good riddance to American exceptionalism.

That’s it. You’re not getting a Republican nomination, Lydia. I’m sorry. [Lydia laughs] You just lost it right there.