The title of the April 9 Times Sunday opinion piece was "Four Opinion Writers on Trump's Indictment and 'the Borderlands of Illegality,'" but, for the purpose of precision, it should have been styled "Three anti-Trump propagandists and one NeverTrump on the need to keep humiliating the SOB."

The propagandists participating in this anti-Trump exercise were Times opinion (as propaganda) columnists Lydia Polgreen, Ross Douthat (the NeverTrump voice), Carlos Lozada, and Michelle Cottle of the Times editorial (as propaganda) board.

Polgreen started the anti-Trump propaganda by expressing surprise (dismay) that the former president had no prior arrests and suggested that that was because he "always manag[ed] to wriggle out of trouble."  Ms. Polgreen thereby suggests that she studied at the Pelosi "guilty unless you prove your innocence" school of law.  Ms. Cottle (sharing Ms. Polgreen's conclusion) did not think Mr. Trump would end up in prison.  Thereupon, Douthat interjected: "If we don't think he's going to end up in jail for any of these potential prosecutions [sic], then the purpose of a prosecution is a symbolic conviction?"

Lozada followed with a puzzling comment, insisting that Trump must still be prosecuted, and then added this:

When Donald Trump incites an insurrection, when Donald Trump attempts to strongarm Georgia election officials to find 11,780 more votes, that has to have legal consequences even if it doesn't have political consequences.

The phrase "asserting facts not in evidence" springs to mind.  Lozada's virulent exposure to Trump Derangement Syndrome seems to have rendered irrational his remarks about an insurrection and "strongarming" election officials in Georgia, but at The New York Times, rational lucidity apparently is not considered a plus in hiring opinion writers.  Behold, Lozada is trying to transform phony, off-the-wall anti-Trump Democrat talking points into legal arguments.  What balderdash; what sleight-of-hand.  What chutzpah.

Cottle tried to rescue Lozada from his incomprehensible mutterings, declaring the Georgia matter a "better sell" than the New York case.  "Better sell" to whom?  A Georgia jury handpicked by the Fulton County district attorney is likely to be as anti-Trump as the Manhattan panel.  Isn't that what this is all about — ways and means to destroy our legacy of liberty?

Thereupon, Lozada digressed to tell his fellow anti-Trump panelists that he had read Michael Cohen's book.  At this point, Douthat and Polgreen stated likewise.  Incredibly, three of these four anti-Trump propagandists acknowledged to readers that they sought out a convicted felon as the source for reliable information about former president Trump.

Skipping past the Michael Cohen digression, Polgreen burst out with this doozy: "I've been thinking about what kind of a RICO [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations] statute to deal with a political figure like Donald Trump would look like."  She continued: "And I think that the RICO statute might be elections — that the way that you legitimately defeat someone who commits these kinds of relatively minor offenses, but add them all up to pretty nasty crimes, is actually through making sure that he doesn't get into office again via buying an election."  Let's pause here.  Has Donald J. Trump ever been accused of buying an election, even by his most deranged foes?  Behold Polgreen, the totalitarian, looking for ways and means to make sure we really turn into a banana republic.  This is the voice of opinion at The New York Times.

There is a bit more to the four-part discussion, including this mixed metaphor from Douthat — "That train has sailed" — but, to borrow a term once invidiously applied by former FBI director James Comey, to comment further is rather nauseating.