The hour of 4 pm Tuesday, potentially one of the most consequential hours in the history of the American presidency, made clear that history books will almost certainly note Donald Trump’s surprise 2016 election win with an asterisk.

Just minutes apart, in courtrooms in New York and outside Washington, DC, two of Trump’s closest aides—his longtime personal lawyer and his former campaign chairman—became felons, as the former pleaded guilty to eight criminal charges, and the latter was found guilty by a jury on eight other charges.

For the better part of two years, Trump has remained by all accounts obsessed with his narrow, unlikely campaign victory, bragging about his electoral college totals in numerous settings, including to foreign leaders like Vladimir Putin, even as he lost the popular vote by 3 million votes. Yet after Tuesday, the victory appears increasingly tainted, the American presidency as the spoils of ill-gotten gains, an election whose pivotal moments were shaped—potentially decisively—by Russian attacks overseas and hush money cover-ups at home.

After all, the question, following Tuesday’s back-to-back bombshells, is no longer whether Trump’s surprise victory was aided by criminal acts—that much has been made clear both by Robert Mueller’s sweeping indictments against two dozen Russians, working for Vladimir Putin’s military intelligence as well as for the Internet Research Agency, as well as by Michael Cohen’s decision to plead guilty to campaign finance violations.

To state that more simply: At least two separate criminal conspiracies helped elect Donald Trump president in 2016, one executed by the Russian government, another by Trump’s personal lawyer.

The questions now are how many different crimes aided the president—and how closely and personally involved was Donald Trump himself?

Six Big Questions

Presumably that’s a question that special counsel Robert Mueller has been studying for some time. The facts surrounding Michael Cohen’s guilty pleas Tuesday were on Mueller’s radar as early as November, according to public reports, although the investigation targeting him only became public in April, when federal agents raided his home and office.

Trump himself brushed off the Manafort verdict Tuesday night, saying, “It doesn’t involve me,” which is technically true but misses the huge implications for how the spiraling—and growing—investigation will unfold.

We’re left, after Tuesday, with six big questions, both political and criminal:

How long does Paul Manafort go to prison? Manafort, who is already in jail after allegedly tampering with witnesses in his case, faces a stunning comedown: The 69-year-old political consultant, with a taste for a luxurious lifestyle that included ostrich jackets, appears unlikely to breathe another free breath. He faces as many as 80 years in prison after Tuesday’s conviction, as well as another trial, set for next month in Washington, that could add perhaps as much as another century of prison time. Pending a presidential pardon—which itself would surely set off a national political firestorm—Paul Manafort is going to prison.

Given the breadth and depth of the charges against him, the fact that Manafort did not already strike a plea deal seems to indicate that he is not likely to attempt to cooperate now; however, evidence of cooperation could garner him a shorter sentence. Will he finally share what he knows—or does he even know anything of value?

What will Michael Cohen say? Fixer Michael Cohen’s guilty pleas did not come Tuesday with a cooperation agreement—he is not obligated to speak with Robert Mueller’s team—but Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, told MSNBC last night, “Mr. Cohen has knowledge on certain subjects that should be of interest to the special counsel and is more than happy to tell the special counsel all that he knows.”

After Tuesday, the victory appears increasingly tainted, the American presidency as the spoils of ill-gotten gains.

Yet it’s hard to know how to read Cohen’s plea deal coming without a cooperation agreement. Why would he start speaking now, rather than use what he knows as leverage up front with prosecutors? Does it mean that Cohen (a) refused to cooperate before, (b) doesn’t actually have anything of value to tell prosecutors, or (c) that prosecutors feel they already have sufficient evidence regarding what Michael Cohen knows, and that his added testimony would be superfluous? Each of those scenarios has interesting and distinct impacts on the case against the president going forward.