The Manhattan criminal case that resulted in the first felony conviction of a former president may represent “the last stand for the rule of law,” as former federal prosecutor Randall D. Eliason warns in his latest report on The Atlantic that Donald Trumpthe return to White House threatens to end the multiple criminal proceedings brought against him.
Judge Juan Merchanwho had to decide whether to uphold Trump’s conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records, in light of the Supreme Courtthe immunity decision, postponed its decision until November 19. The delay follows a joint request from prosecutors and defense lawyers for time to consider how to proceed following Trump’s electoral victory.
News week contacted the Trump transition team by email on Sunday for comment.
Eliason, who now teaches business criminal law at George Washington University, asserts in his column that Trump’s recent presidential victory should not prevent the New York affair from succeeding. “The election was not a ‘verdict’ on Trump’s criminality,” Eliason says. “No other criminal defendant in American history has had the power to end 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 step in this proceeding appropriately balances competing interests” between “a jury verdict of guilty at the outcome of a trial which has the presumption of regularity”. ” and considerations regarding “the Office of the President.”
Trump’s legal team says the case must be dismissed to avoid what they call “unconstitutional obstacles” to his ability to govern. The former president has consistently denied any wrongdoing in the case, which involves the payment of $130,000 to a former adult film actor. Stormy Daniels.
Trump called the accusation politically motivated and denied allegations of an extramarital affair, calling the affair a “witch hunt” aimed at harming his 2024 presidential campaign.
The jury convicted Trump in May for all 34 counts related to the falsification of business records in what prosecutors described as a scheme to influence the 2016 election via payment to Daniels. Sentencing was postponed twice following the Supreme Court’s July 1 ruling that presidents enjoy broad immunity from prosecution for their official actions.
While Trump was a private citizen when his then-attorney Michael Cohen made the payment to Daniels, his legal team says the jury was presented with evidence that should have been excluded under Supreme Court guidelines, including presidential financial disclosure forms and testimony from White House staff.
Prosecutors argue that the decision “has no bearing” on the case, noting that the disputed evidence represents only “a fragment of the mountains of testimony and documentary evidence that the jury considered.”
The implications extend far beyond this single case. Although 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 the charges brought by the State. However, as Eliason points out, the reality is that “a state will not be permitted to bring a sitting president to justice.”
Special Advisor Jack Smith is reportedly exploring options for “relax“federal prosecutions, based on Ministry of Justice policy according to which a sitting president cannot be prosecuted. Trump, who has pleaded not guilty in all cases, previously said he would fire Smith “within two seconds” of being sworn in.
THE Georgia election interference case faces its own challenges, currently mired in appeals over whether the prosecutor should be disqualified for conflict of interest. If prosecutors survive the appeals, the trial could proceed against the remaining defendants, but any potential trial of Trump would likely be postponed until he leaves office.
Former Attorney General William Barr publicly called on prosecutors to drop all pending criminal cases, arguing that “the American people have rendered their verdict.” However, Eliason counters that winning an election does not make someone less culpable and that the election was not a referendum on Trump’s criminal responsibility.