The most definitive determination that Donald Trump is a criminal came last week from federal prosecutors from the most storied U.S. Attorney’s office in the country, that of the Southern District of New York. These are the crème de la crème of professional prosecutors, and they work not for Democrats but for a Justice Department run by Trump’s own appointees.

Their filings in a federal court were in the name of the United States of America, and they state that Mr. Trump directed and coordinated what they assert was an illegal “scheme” to violate federal law. Their charges about Trump, backed by the sworn admissions of the very individuals who were directed by Trump to engage in the illegal conduct, are further reinforced by tape recordings of Trump himself. They are reinforced yet further by the now-famous video of Trump stating falsely that he was unaware that the conduct he had directed had even occurred — bald-faced lies that he told the American people exactly because he knew that the conduct was illegal, and he therefore wanted to hide it.

The U.S. government’s allegation that its president is a crook comes before Special Counsel Bob Mueller’s investigation into whether or not Trump and team conspired with the Russians to cheat America out of a fair election, or obstructed justice, or engaged in other wrongdoing, is anywhere near complete. But even by itself, the damning evidence that Donald Trump has committed felonies makes it very possible that “Individual 1”— the identifier used for Trump by prosecutors — will land in prison as “Inmate 1.”

The prosecutors have concluded that the Donald Trump-Michael Cohen scheme to pay hush money to keep several of Trump’s sexual partners silent just before the 2016 election was conceived and executed “with the intent to influence the election.” That isn’t a civil matter, or small potatoes, or a technicality. It’s a federal crime. And it is a federal crime that prosecutors have concluded was committed “at the direction of” Donald Trump.

The president’s die-hards counter that the criminal case against Trump hinges on the credibility of Cohen, a liar, versus that of Trump, who, of course, makes Cohen look like Abraham Lincoln. But they are incorrect. Cohen’s admissions that he conspired with Trump to commit federal crimes are corroborated by the admissions of the head of the National Enquirer, David Pecker, those of Trump organization employees cooperating with law enforcement and the treasure trove of evidence seized from Cohen’s office by the FBI. On the issue of whether Mr. Trump is guilty of federal crimes, Mr. “Lock her up!” would seem to be cooked.

Even if that is so, some say, he is safely protected from prosecution by a Department of Justice policy guideline published at the time of Watergate, which counsels against indicting a sitting president. First, that is simply a statement of policy preference. Whether it will hold or give way under the weight of evidence that the president of the United States actually became president with the help of federal crimes orchestrated by him in order that he could in fact become president is a real question. And that is quite without the compendium of wrongdoing by Trump and company that Bob Mueller appears to be in the process of assembling. Moreover, nothing in the guideline would prevent federal prosecutors from placing Trump on trial in lower Manhattan if he is out of office in 2021.

In October 1973, U.S. Attorney General Elliot Richardson overrode the strong recommendation of Department of Justice prosecutors that Vice President Spiro Agnew be indicted on corruption charges, instead offering Agnew the opportunity to resign in return for avoiding prison. If Donald Trump has any attorney strong enough to candidly advise him about the potential scenarios he is facing, he may soon be forced to consider the Agnew Option as a way of sparing himself as well as the country.