There is a difference between a criminal and a cad. A criminal violates a government’s written laws. A cad violates the moral laws regarding how men should treat women. To violate written laws, a criminal rejects the authority of his fellow citizens to make commonly binding rules. To violate moral laws, the cad must reject the dignity of women, who are his fellow human beings, treating them as objects for pleasure. A criminal hides his deeds to avoid legal conviction and punishment. A cad hides his deeds to avoid public shame.

We should keep the distinction between a criminal and a cad in mind when assessing the possible indictment of former President Donald Trump . Trump has been accused of paying hush money to Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about their sexual encounters. Daniels, a porn star, allegedly received $130,000 in exchange for her silence — money supposedly given through Trump’s former attorney, Michael Cohen . If certain reports are true, then Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg will charge Trump with a campaign finance violation for falsifying business records by hiding this transaction within the financial statements of the Trump Organization.

The infraction amounts to a misdemeanor. A felony only occurred if the records were falsified to cover up another crime. That seems highly unlikely, and federal prosecutors passed on essentially the same case already. Moreover, the star witness in this prosecution would be Cohen, himself now a felon. Finally, for reasons that Andy McCarthy points out , the statute of limitations likely ran out on prosecuting this case years ago.

Thus, the criminal case is weak where significant and insubstantial where plausible. These actions do not show Trump to be a criminal. They show him to be a cad. Sometimes men can be both when their caddishness leads them to criminal actions. But we have nothing approaching convincing evidence of that combination here.

This truth may get Trump off the legal hook, but it does not exonerate him in all ways. The laws’ prescriptions and proscriptions do not exhaust the mandates of morality. He still likely committed adultery. That is no small matter.

Generally speaking, viciousness may outweigh illegality in its evil. One can make a good case for that here. Falsified financial records pale in comparison to breaking a solemn oath to be sexually faithful in marriage. Both involve lying; but to whom and about what makes a significant difference. It makes a difference in part due to the sacredness of one vow versus the simply contractual nature of the other.

This matters because marriage and family ground a strong and healthy society. And it matters because so much of the dignity and respect a person deserves is wrapped up in how their spouse honors their common commitment.

To make matters worse, this act seems part of a long-standing pattern. The character revealed in that pattern well surpasses the supposed indictment in deserved ignominy. To lie on financial documents might show some disregard for obeying the law. But doing so was not a love for lawbreaking itself. It came from a desire not to get caught in an extramarital affair. If anything, hush money was some acknowledgment of right by trying to cover up the wrong.

To break his marital oath, Trump treated himself as exempt from the moral virtue of temperance, especially in sexual matters. More than exempt, Trump speaks at times like his virtue resides, at least in part, in the spiritedness, even manliness his vices display. “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20). His infidelities reveal a wantonness beast-like in its character and debasing in its treatment of others.

But Bragg would display his own moral failings in indicting Trump. He would abuse his office for partisan gain, undermining the rule of law in its impartiality and the courtroom as a place to seek justice. He would lack the moral virtue of courage not to cave to the political mob. And he would fail the highest test of statesmanship: the exercise of prudence.

Indicting Trump would exacerbate partisan tensions for no legitimate reason. It would entice all parties toward a precipice of discord and violence. Such action on the part of Bragg may not be provably criminal, either. But he, too, would deserve moral condemnation.

Adam Carrington is an associate professor of politics at Hillsdale College.