Manafort's conviction will empower Mueller to expose the links between Trump and the Kremlin

As the full extent of the double blows against him in the cases of Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort were being digested, Donald Trump, facing his worst day since the Russia investigation began, was at a rally in West Virginia leading his supporters to another chant of “lock her up”.

It would perhaps be too much to ask diehard Trump followers to appreciate the irony. It is not Hillary Clinton, but Trump, who is in grave peril from what unfolded in two courtrooms 240 miles apart, and the explosive allegation by Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, that his client may have knowledge implicating Trump in Russian hacking of the US elections.

The question, now, is not whether all this will once again simply slide off this Teflon presidency like other allegations, but whether it is impeachment, or a criminal indictment, which is the most likely scenario.

Cohen once used to say he “would take a bullet” for Trump, the man to whom he had been personal lawyer, fixer and confidant for decades. But we saw what happened when he faced the prospect of years behind bars: when it came to the crunch, instead of sacrificing himself, the bodyguard turned a loaded gun on the president.

Cohen is not the only one once close to the president who had been keen on plea bargaining after being arrested in Robert Mueller’s investigation. On the list are Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser, who was a regular orchestrator of the rounds of “lock her up” chants during the election race; Rick Gates, the former deputy campaign chairman; and George Papadopoulos, who was a campaign adviser on foreign policy issues.

These people have provided damaging allegations to the special counsel against Trump and his team, including, it is claimed, his son Donald Jnr and son-in-law Jared Kushner, in return for favours from the prosecution.

The one person who did not plea bargain was Paul Manafort: he now faces up to 80 years in jail on the charges he was convicted.

There was some surprise that the 69-year-old political consultant did not go down that plea bargaining route. It has been reported that he hoped for a pardon from the president if found guilty. But Manafort faces a second trial. And unlike the one which just finished in Virginia, which concentrated on bank fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy, the next case will focus on alleged connection to the Kremlin.

Manafort is charged with acting as a foreign agent and lying about it to the federal authorities. His co-defendant is Konstantin Kilimnik, who lives in Russia and, according to US authorities, has links to Russian intelligence. Manafort had been jailed after a judge revoked his house arrest over allegations that there were attempts at witness tampering in this case.

There may be revelations at this second trial which will have direct bearing on Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the election which put Trump in the White House. Cohen, as well as anything he may tell Mueller about Trump’s knowledge of Kremlin hacking, is believed to be cooperating with the special counsel’s team on other alleged links between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign, especially about the role of Felix Sater, a career criminal who was an associate of Trump as well as, according to US prosecutors, the Russian mafia.

Cohen, it has been reported, had an agreement with Sater to build a Trump Tower hotel in Moscow. Sater had accompanied Ivanka Trump and Donald Jnr on a trip to Moscow at, he had claimed, the request of their father. Ivanka Trump, documents reportedly show, became separately involved in the project, connecting Cohen to Dmitry Klokov, a former Olympic weightlifter who had offered to introduce Trump (before his presidential bid) to Vladimir Putin and also claimed he could facilitate the building of the hotel.

Crucially, Cohen is claiming that Donald Trump knew and approved of a secret meeting at the Trump Tower Hotel between Trump Jnr, Manafort, Kushner and a Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, who claimed to have information on Hillary Clinton. Trump has denied knowing about the meeting and of dictating a statement in his son’s name, claiming it was about Americans adopting Russian children. That statement by the president has become a key factor into whether he and those around him attempted to obstruct the investigation into Russian meddling in the US election.

But Trump faces a second front from Cohen’s trial. The lawyer has accused the president of conspiring in and directing a felony. Cohen says that payments had been made to buy the silence of former porn star Stormy Daniels, over an alleged affair with Trump. Cohen also says that he had urged the tabloid National Enquirer to make a similar payment to former Playboy model Karen McDougal to hide another alleged affair. And this had been done “in collaboration and the direction of a candidate for federal office” to influence the election result.

What happens now? An indictment would almost inevitably follow if a lawyer pleads guilty to a crime in court and says under oath that his client has directed him to do this. But would this apply to a president in office?

This remains unclear. There is nothing in the US constitution against indicting a president on criminal charges. The relevant passage states: “Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honour, trust or profit under the United States: But the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”

The Department of Justice’s position, however, is said to be that sitting presidents are immune from criminal prosecutions.

The Supreme Court has not ruled definitively on this. It heard submissions on this issue on 1974 when it ordered Richard Nixon to hand over the Watergate tapes, but it did not make a ruling. The special prosecutor seeking the tapes, Leon Jaworski, held that “It is an open and substantial question whether an incumbent president is subject to indictment”.

This is supported by eminent experts such as Hofstra law professor Eric Freedman who holds that presidential immunity is “inconsistent with the history, structure and underlying philosophy of our government, at odds with precedent and unjustified by practical considerations”. He has pointed out that other federal officials, such as judges, can and have been prosecuted.

One argument against prosecuting a sitting president, then Justice Department solicitor-general Robert H Bork pointed out, was that the president can issue pardons for federal offences while in office. Indeed, Trump has boasted that he can pardon himself if necessary.

Bork’s view, supported by several senior jurisprudence experts, was that a sealed indictment can be obtained and prosecution take place after the president is removed from office and no longer has the power of issuing a pardon.

Under this policy the Justice Department can wait until Trump leaves the presidency, either through losing an election or resignation, and then prosecute him. Or, a more likely course, hand over the evidence to congress for any impeachment proceedings.

Trump’s daily bluster is not saving him as the net draws closer. Robert Mueller’s report is expected to be delivered after the midterm elections and impeachment proceedings are likely to begin if the Democrats get one or both chambers of congress. One should not be surprised to hear the chant in their coming campaign rallies of “lock him up”.