RUTHFULLY YOURS

The press is reporting that Mr. Cohen is being investigated for possible bank fraud and campaign-finance violations in connection to his $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels (née Stephanie Clifford ) in October 2016. Mr. Cohen said he made the payment as a personal favor for his friend and client, Mr. Trump.

But if the payment was intended to silence the actress to help Mr. Trump win the election, then it could be considered a campaign contribution that exceeded the donation limit in 2016. As Bradley Smith notes nearby, proving such a crime would be difficult, and former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards was acquitted in a similar case. But these days in politics anything can be criminalized.

The raid is especially notable, and troubling, for piercing the attorney-client relationship between Mr. Cohen and Mr. Trump. That is a serious step legally, and it typically requires significant evidence to justify. It would also require the approval at senior levels of the Justice Department. The warrant came at the request of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan on a referral from special counsel Robert Mueller, who could use whatever information the raid generates.

Mr. Cohen’s lawyer denounced the raid as “completely inappropriate and unnecessary” and a needless “seizure of protected attorney-client communications.” Mr. Trump reacted with fury and called the raid a “disgrace” and “an attack on what we all stand for.”

These are self-serving defenses, but we suspect more than a few Americans are wondering about such an extraordinary intrusion into a target’s right to counsel. Mr. Cohen knows as much about Mr. Trump’s personal and financial affairs as anyone, and prosecutors could use an indictment to coerce his cooperation against the President. Contrast this treatment with the deference accorded Cheryl Mills, who was allowed to attend the FBI’s interview with Hillary Clinton as her counsel even though Ms. Mills was part of the personal email saga at the State Department.

All of this is a long way from “treason” and the allegation that Mr. Trump is a front man for Vladimir Putin. Could Mr. Trump really be indicted or impeached for the stupidity of trying to cover up an affair from 2006? The hilarious thought is that Mr. Trump or his lawyer believed they could protect Mr. Trump’s reputation.

By the time of Mr. Cohen’s payment to Ms. Daniels in October 2016, every American knew Mr. Trump had an unsavory history with women. Ms. Daniels could have shouted about her affair—which Mr. Trump still denies—for hours on CNN and most voters would have said that sounds like Donald Trump but so what? He was running against Hillary Clinton, who covered for her husband’s affairs for decades.

In his Monday rage at the raid, Mr. Trump again raised the prospect of firing Mr. Mueller or other Justice officials. Never underestimate the President’s capacity to hurt himself. But firing Mr. Mueller wouldn’t stop the investigation, though it would cost him Republican support and probably guarantee his impeachment if Democrats take the House in November.

The smart advice—which he won’t take—is to keep quiet about Mr. Mueller and build political capital by trying to succeed as President. Get a stronger legal team, on criminal and constitutional law for the fight ahead, and let faster economic growth improve the public mood. That saved Bill Clinton.

Even as Mr. Mueller expands his probe, the Justice Department Inspector General will soon report on how the FBI and Justice handled the investigation into Mrs. Clinton. If there is no more evidence than is now public about collusion with Russia, many voters will conclude the exercise was mainly partisan. Ditto if prosecutor John Huber finds evidence that Obama officials were colluding with some in the FBI to defeat Mr. Trump. Most Americans will judge the President based on the overall evidence.

Mr. Trump can’t control Mr. Mueller, but he can control himself. That may be the only way he can save his Presidency.