Throughout his political career, Donald Trump managed to evade the law. It is possible that he always will be. He was impeached twice but acquitted both times, and since leaving office, his party has been remarkably successful in delaying and reducing criminal cases against him.
On Friday, that prospect was ended 34 times, thanks to a New York jury convicting him of felony charges stemming from his cover-up of payments to an adult film actress during his 2016 campaign. The 34 counts make Trump the first former president in US history to be convicted of a crime.
“I think it’s incredibly significant,” said Noah Bookbinder, president of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “This is really the first example of real accountability for Donald Trump.”
But while the New York case gives Trump his first taste of criminal justice, it also demonstrates weaknesses in the federal system. One of Trump’s federal trials — one to try to overturn the 2020 election and another for his dangerous stewardship of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago — appears likely to return a verdict before the 2024 election. And Trump, who is leading the polls and has told aides he will Undermining prosecutions Against him, if he retakes the Oval Office, there is a clear path to avoid federal consequences. Even if the federal trial were to reach a verdict before the election, he has Play with ideas Once elected to forgive himself.
There is good reason to set a high bar for judging officeholders. Indeed, specifically pursuing political opponents for crimes, real or imagined, is a key part of the authoritarian playbook.
But there are also risks to democracy when the judiciary lacks the power to enforce the law in the face of clearly criminal behavior. Trump’s story reflects a seemingly fragile federal system that — because of its reliance on rules and officials’ willingness to put the rule of law before partisanship — is seriously struggling.
Why New York convictions are not enough
Since Manhattan’s district attorney indicted Trump last year, pretty much commentary The case is that This is a weaker and less severe case than others against former presidents.
And while it’s true that falsifying business records is less serious than trying to steal an election, the two are not entirely disconnected.
Trump’s hush money scandal — in which he paid Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about their relationship and falsified business records to cover it up — was a window into his philosophy of willingness and ability to break the rules to get to the presidency: it was his taking and Elections should not be respected.
“It’s in some ways a piece with subsequent behavior in the sense that it was criminal wrongdoing and fraudulent behavior that helped him get into a position of power,” Bookbinder said.
But it’s not enough for just one state to enforce laws against Trump. “I don’t think it really replaces the role of the federal government,” Bookbinder said. “And what we’ve seen over the last four years is … a lot of institutions are acting as if it’s easy and good to pretend that this effort to overturn an election and foment an insurgency.”
Nor should states be expected to take over the role of the federal government when there is a vacuum of accountability, especially when the crimes in question are so egregious.
“When it comes to injustice by a president, there’s a reason that states aren’t always in a good position to look at them,” Bookbinder said. For example, states have very limited scope when it comes to presidential conduct because they can only go after crimes committed within their jurisdiction. “They’re not used to or equipped for things that happen in Washington at the federal level.”
The only jurisdiction that can truly protect the federal government from dictators is the federal government itself.
That’s hardly a recipe for protecting the country as a whole from a president who, say, is willing to foment an uprising to hold on to power illegally. After Trump so recklessly attacked key democratic institutions of the federal government — including Congress and the Judiciary — it’s critical that those institutions not only survive those blows but also hold those responsible accountable. It’s about setting a precedent and sending a message to Trump’s successors about whether defying democracy has consequences. At the end of the day, the only jurisdiction that can truly protect the federal government from dictators is the federal government itself.
There are also risks associated with over-relying on the states to enforce democratic rules and regulations rather than the federal government. While the New York case was important and had great legal merit, it could have a dangerous unintended consequence, especially if it turns out to be Trump’s only successful prosecution. It sets a precedent for other states to follow suit against former presidents and other federal officials, potentially resulting in more politically motivated investigations, especially by prosecutors in hyperpolarized states that are far from any meaningful political opposition.
“This New York case was not at all … an overzealous prosecutor who wanted to bring a case at all costs,” Bookbinder said. “But of course this could be used as an excuse for other, more politically minded, prosecutors who might abuse. [their power]”
That doesn’t mean there aren’t checks and balances. “Eventually there has to be something,” Bookbinder said. “I don’t think we’ve reached a point where states can bring completely frivolous, made-up political cases and have them go anywhere.”
That said, prosecutors can still make little effort to initiate such prosecutions, which is why it’s especially important for the federal government to take on the task of holding former presidents accountable.
What will happen if Trump wins?
Justice Department cases against Trump have been hampered by delays. That basically happened Trump’s legal team’s tactics: Delaying judgments long enough to make selections before they actually go anywhere.
Trump has gone back and forth on whether to try to pardon himself, but The question is whether He has legal powers that have never been tested in court. (More than that, sorry Will not release him from his New York conviction (Since this was a state, not federal, case.)
But what Trump can do, if he’s not convicted before taking office, is to thwart Justice Department cases against him. It’s another abuse of power and will no doubt be corrupt, but it’s not enough to stop him.
“We’ve got a fair amount of past behavior to guide us. Donald Trump has very clearly … pushed for the cases to be dropped,” Bookbinder said. “He seems to have very little interest in having a meaningful separation between the president and the Department of Defense. I think we have every reason to believe that if he If he becomes president, he will start killing those cases.
Trump, after all, did Attack case against He has tried to intimidate those concerned, including prosecutors, by calling him a “witch victim”. attack their families. And he swore to take revenge against his political opponents If he wins the presidency again.
That is why it is so important to settle these cases before the elections: to prevent any possible political manipulation.
“I think one of the things we’ve learned during the Trump presidency is that a lot of things that we thought were laws were rules and traditions. But even when the laws were there, they didn’t enforce themselves. You need people and institutions that are willing to enforce them,” Bookbinder said.
So far, the federal government has failed that test. While there have been many attempts to hold Trump accountable at the federal level — Congress has thoroughly investigated him, the U.S. House has twice impeached him and the Justice Department has indicted him in two separate criminal cases — the federal government has yet to prove it can follow through on holding former presidents to account. .
It’s not necessarily unique to this moment. The Obama administration’s failure, for example, to hold its predecessors accountable for torture Set an example That is, until you reach a high enough level in government, you enjoy a degree of immunity from even the most serious violations of the law.
But the question has never been whether the system has the tools to hold former presidents accountable. It is a question of whether those in power want to ensure that the law is not just on paper.
“I don’t think the federal government can police itself. I think it can,” Bookbinder said. “But a lot of it comes down to desire.”
It finally blooms between now and November. The federal government has one last chance to hold Trump accountable for misconduct as president. If it fails to do so, one thing is clear: the federal system is incapable of enforcing the law against presidents and will prove itself above the law.
