The Manhattan criminal case that resulted in the first-ever felony conviction of a former president may represent “the rule of law’s last stand,” as former federal prosecutor Randall D. Eliason warns in his latest for The Atlantic that Donald Trump’s return to the White House threatens to end multiple criminal prosecutions against him.
Judge Juan Merchan, who was expected to decide whether to uphold Trump’s conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in light of the Supreme Court’s immunity decision, has postponed his ruling until November 19. The delay follows a joint request from prosecutors and defense attorneys seeking time to consider how to proceed following Trump’s election victory.
Newsweek contacted Trump’s transition team via email on Sunday for comment.
Eliason, who now teaches white-collar criminal law at George Washington University, argues in his column that Trump’s recent presidential win should not prevent the New York case from reaching its conclusion. “The election was not a ‘verdict’ on Trump’s criminality,” says Eliason. “No other criminal defendant in American history has had the power to shut down his own prosecution.”
Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo addressed these unprecedented circumstances in a recent letter to Judge Merchan, emphasizing the need to “ensure that any further steps in this proceeding appropriately balance the competing interests” between “a jury verdict of guilt following a trial that has the presumption of regularity” and considerations regarding “the Office of the President.”
Trump’s legal team contends the case must be dismissed to avoid what they term “unconstitutional impediments” to his ability to govern. The former president has consistently denied any wrongdoing in the case, which centers on a $130,000 payment to former adult film actor Stormy Daniels.
Trump has called the prosecution politically motivated and denied allegations of an extramarital affair, characterizing the case as a “witch hunt” aimed at harming his 2024 presidential campaign.
The jury convicted Trump in May on all 34 counts related to falsifying business records as part of what prosecutors described as a scheme to influence the 2016 election through the payment to Daniels. The sentencing has been postponed twice following the Supreme Court’s July 1 ruling that presidents have broad immunity from prosecution over their official acts.
While Trump was a private citizen when his then-lawyer Michael Cohen made the payment to Daniels, his legal team argues that the jury received evidence that should have been excluded under the Supreme Court’s guidance, including presidential financial disclosure forms and White House staff testimony.
Prosecutors maintain that the ruling “has no bearing” on the case, noting that the contested evidence represents only “a sliver of the mountains of testimony and documentary proof that the jury considered.”
The implications extend far beyond this single case. While Trump may be able to end federal prosecutions once in office — including the classified documents case in Florida and the January 6 case in Washington, D.C. — he cannot unilaterally dismiss state charges. However, as Eliason notes, the reality is that “a state will not be allowed to put a sitting president on trial.”
Special counsel Jack Smith is reportedly exploring options to “wind down” the federal prosecutions, based on Department of Justice policy that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted. Trump, who has pleaded not guilty in all cases, previously stated he would fire Smith “within two seconds” of being sworn into office.
The Georgia election interference case faces its own challenges, currently mired in appeals over whether the district attorney should be disqualified for a conflict of interest. If prosecutors survive the appeals, the trial might proceed against remaining defendants, but any potential trial of Trump would likely be postponed until he leaves office.
Former Attorney General William Barr has publicly called for prosecutors to drop all pending criminal cases, arguing that “the American people have rendered their verdict.” However, Eliason counters that winning an election doesn’t make someone any less guilty and that the election was not a referendum on Trump’s criminal liability.
Read the full article here
