Keeping track of all the cases Donald Trump has caught can be hard. There’s the Georgia election-fraud investigation into Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 results in that state, which he lost; there’s the New York civil investigation into alleged financial fraud by the Trump Organization; there’s the Manhattan district attorney’s inquiry into possible campaign-finance violations from Trump’s alleged hush-money payment to the adult actress Stormy Daniels; and there’s the federal special-counsel inquiry regarding Trump’s handling of classified material.

Over the past few weeks, media speculation about criminal indictments has led to conservative media figures and Republican legislators threatening retaliation against prosecutors, with some Trump supporters (and Trump himself) hinting at the possibility of political violence. This is an object lesson in the distinction between “law and order” and the actual rule of law: The former is a conservative shorthand for lawlessness that exempts those in authority from the rules, while the latter applies the law to everyone. Some Republicans’ demands for Democratic Party leaders to pressure legal officials over prosecutorial decisions are themselves a clear expression of the idea that the law should be enforced only against people whom conservatives despise.

[David A. Graham: If they can come for Trump, they can come for everyone]

Trumpist demands that Trump be above the law, however, should not obscure the necessity that any criminal indictment of the ex-president follow the law to the letter. Media coverage has suggested that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s criminal inquiry into Trump’s alleged hush-money payments may be the shoe likeliest to drop first, but some legal experts have questioned whether that case is a strong one. The trial of the former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, over payments to a former lover, offers a precedent for such an indictment. But it also provides a warning that such cases are difficult to prosecute: The Edwards jury ultimately deadlocked over whether the payments amounted to a crime, and he walked. I won’t speculate on the specifics of this case, but any indictment should be based on clear and convincing evidence that Trump committed a crime, not on personal or partisan ambitions.

Trump has cultivated cynicism about the rule of law by portraying its enforcement as a mere tool of partisan politics; flattering that impression with a flimsy case would undermine the rule of law rather than strengthen it. Impeachment is a political process, but Democrats prepared two strong and thorough cases in both impeachments, each brimming with evidence of Trump’s repeated and deliberate attacks on democratic sovereignty. No criminal indictment of Trump should be held to a lesser standard.

Trump’s political status has already won him preferential treatment from the legal system. Most people do not have the financial or legal resources to fight prosecutors; very few charges lead to trials, because most people, even if innocent, will cop a plea rather than risk more time. But indicting a former president is inherently political, and although Trump supporters will not be moved even by strong evidence, a weak case will strengthen the cynicism about the rule of law that Trump has so successfully exploited for his own purposes. Trumpists will portray any indictment as political, but it does actually matter if the case is weak enough for that argument to be made persuasively.

[David A. Graham: Trump gets a taste of his own medicine]

This is not the same as saying that Trump should skate on something perceived as a small offense when he appears guilty of much greater offenses. There was nothing unfair or dishonorable about nabbing Al Capone for tax evasion, but the government did, in fact, have to prove that he evaded taxes. The stakes are even higher when the greater offenses include an assault on democracy itself.

Donald Trump is back in his presidential—or at least modern-day-presidential—form, posting unhinged threats on social media in the middle of the night. Early today, he posted on his Truth Social site:

What kind of person can charge another person, in this case a former President of the United States, who got more votes than any sitting President in history, and leading candidate (by far!) for the Republican Party nomination, with a Crime, when it is known by all that NO Crime has been committed, & also known that potential death & destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our Country? Why & who would do such a thing? Only a degenerate psychopath that truely hates the USA!

Nearly every phrase in this message is disturbing, but the most rattling part is his threat of “death & destruction.” This is classic Trumpian mob-boss talk: He doesn’t make a specific threat against anyone, and he doesn’t specifically incite any acts. He might even note in his defense that some of his own critics have fretted that arresting him might produce a violent backlash. And yet the intent is unmistakably to intimidate Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and anyone else who might try to charge him with crimes. It’s a threat against the American justice system as a whole.

By now, no one will seriously wonder whether this kind of threat is too much for other Republican leaders to bear. Everyone knows the answer is no. When Trump previously predicted he would be arrested earlier this week and called for protests, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy demurred. “I don’t think people should protest this, no,” he said. “We want calmness out there.” Yet McCarthy also said, “He’s not talking in a harmful way, and nobody should.” GOP leaders have repeatedly found ways, however implausible, to look past Trump’s abuses.

If the intimidation is shocking, the more revealing part of the rant is what it indicates about Trump’s mindset amid the several criminal probes into him, some of which appear to be moving toward indictments. As he once said in a very different context, “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.” And although Trump was referring to groping women then, that was also his philosophy in life: He broke rules and laws left and right, confident that he wouldn’t get called on it, and if he did, he could easily handle whatever was coming with muscular lawyering or, failing that, a quiet fine or settlement. Now Trump is finding that simply being a star is insufficient to get him out of trouble. In fact, his notoriety has attracted extra scrutiny.

To further dissect his statement:

What kind of person can charge another person

That’s a prosecutor’s job, of course.

who got more votes than any sitting President in history, and leading candidate (by far!) for the Republican Party nomination

Trump loves this talking point, but the problem remains that Joe Biden got more votes. His implication is that because he is popular (or somewhat popular!) he ought to be immune to law enforcement.

with a Crime, when it is known by all that NO Crime has been committed...

Trump is begging the question. Plenty of evidence suggests at least the possibility of a crime, and the point of a trial is to determine whether one has been committed. The former president doesn’t even really bother to mount a substantive defense to the expected allegation against him here, which is that he falsified business records in reimbursing his former fixer Michael Cohen for a hush payment made to Stormy Daniels, an adult-film actor. (He has previously denied any wrongdoing, as well as an affair with Daniels.) Instead, he’s upset that anyone would even bother to suggest that the rules apply to him.

Legal problems aside, a lively debate has occurred over whether getting indicted would actually be good for Trump, by rallying support to him. He’s seen recent improvement in primary polls against Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida, and raised lots of money. But this Truth missive shows that Trump isn’t acting like it’s good for him. His anger suggests he views Bragg’s probe as a threat, and that leads him to the predictable and unacceptable position of making threats of violence. Trump has the right question: “Why & who would do such a thing? Only a degenerate psychopath that truely hates the USA!” Not a bad answer, either.