Americans, under the dawn of the presidential election, find themselves in a frightening position: both judge and jury. Generations ago, stories of business owners engaging in cheeky rule-breaking were commonplace, though modern law is firm and just. Trump is a remnant of this past era, but is now facing reality.
A convicted leader is unprecedented for American society, and Trump’s guilt has already proven quite real. The two civil charges, both his defamation of E. Jean Carrol and business fraud, have amounted to fines of $438.1 million.
However, Trump’s criminal cases are progressing at various speeds. Most egregious in punishment would be his classified document case, the charge consisting of 40 counts, potentially leading to 20 years imprisonment. Encouragement of the Capitol riots, widely regarded as a coup d’etat, entails four counts which presidency could clear him of. Should he enjoy victory at the upcoming election he has multiple options: a self-pardon to absolve himself of any federal cases; instruction to the Department of Justice, since he could appoint an attorney general sympathetic to his desire; or at least a temporary immunity until his term of presidency concludes.
Trump’s indictment in Georgia, concerning election interference, serves as an instance where gaining presidency might not guarantee security. Under the constitution, the presidential pardon can only grant clemency for offences against the United States.[1] Since the offence was not against the United States, but an individual state, a president is unable to issue pardon. One concerning feature of this indictment is its relation to the political sphere. Trump intimidated Secretary of State for Georgia, Raffensperger, to recount the votes stating, “I just wanna find 11,780 votes,”[2] and later falsely suggesting the civil servant had committed a crime by failing to overturn Trump’s election loss in Georgia. Trump’s charge of meddling with the election, whilst again being allowed to run for office, displays a superficial emphasis on the ‘great American democracy’. Sexual offences usually result in some sort of limitation (for instance, if involving children, a restriction from positions in society where interaction with children is commonplace), thus punishment fits the crime. Yet Trump’s involvement in future elections is unrestricted, despite being charged with the crime of meddling with past ones. One answer could allude to the anti-democratic attitude which would result in restricting Trump, since he hasn’t been convicted of the crime yet (though all evidence is publicly available, and most telling). Though returning to analogy on sexual offences, as soon as a charge is made the accused is usually in remand – in the interest of public safety. There remains no convincing reason why Trump is not held in a similar circumstance, in the interest of electoral integrity.
Having reached a verdict, New York’s ‘Hush Money’ case is furthest in progression. Trump was found guilty of all 34 counts of falsifying business records – his objective being to gain supremacy over the electorate, through a payment of $130,000 to Daniels in return for silence on an affair, a payment Cohen (who was Trump’s lawyer) made and declared illegally.[3]
Although guilt had been proven, this never concerned Trump. His strategy continues to revolve around manipulating the timing of the legal system by delaying sentencing. The sentencing hearing was initially scheduled for the 11th of July, though Trump’s parallel legal affair concerning the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the extent of a former president’s immunity was also scheduled to be released on the same day, so he managed to push his hearing to the 18th of September. Later on, Trump used the excuse of election campaigning to push the hearing to the 26th of November – 180 days (that is, almost half a year) after being found guilty.
Has the electoral calendar interrupted legal proceedings? Karen Agnifilo, legal analyst for CNN, claimed Trump’s rise to presidency would be his “get out of jail free card.”[4] It would be idealistic to hope for the court and its actors to approach affairs with ignorance to the political landscape. This would ensure an adherence to the word of the law is maintained, one key rule: nobody is above the law (sort of). But wishful thinking doesn’t last long in America, and it’s impossible for these hopes to come to reality. Should Trump succeed in his race for presidency, he holds the ability (and the will) to remove legal opponency.
“If It’s so easy. I would fire him within two seconds. He’ll be one of the first things addressed.”
Trump, speaking on Jack Smith [5]
(who led investigations into Trump’s classified documents case)
Trump’s indictments themselves present a dilemma for the American voter. Success in prosecuting Trump would imply a weaponisation of the legal system for a political agenda: taking Trump out of the race. However, failure in prosecuting Trump would be a weaponisation of politics for a criminal agenda: using political means for legal ends.
The Democrats could be using legal trouble for their politics, a term I’ll label partisan prosecuting. The Hush Money case begun with Vance’s subpoena to Mazars, Trump’s accounting firm, on personal and business tax returns. Bragg concluded the case to prove Trump’s guilt. But both District Attorneys are Democrats, alluding to partisanship in the indictment. District Attorneys are inherently partisan, each with their own approaches on what should be focused on, spent on, and valued. Lauren M. Ouziel wrote, “Positions on criminal enforcement align closely with points on the political spectrum… it carries risks that have hobbled American politics more broadly.”[6]
Injecting politics into the law fuels an emotive perspective on justice, and strays from the logic and reason of judges, their rulebook, and the jury. Picture the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service being openly led by a conservative executive, with conservative ‘policies’, like having no-tolerance policies for drug offences, or an extremely tightened criteria for asylum seeking and immigration. Such partisanship would deter the actions of the CPS away from reason – hence why the service proudly distances itself from politicisation.
Regardless, the motivation behind why a charge has been pursued ought not to affect the handling of such charge. Vance still had to convince a jury there was a valid case to pursue, and the legal system’s mechanics require ample evidence and a coherent argument to begin a case. This isn’t the dawn of the Democrats, potentially on the cusp of losing power, establishing some totalitarian regime in the legal system to maintain a grasp on their power. That would only be true if partisan prosecution goes so far as to affect the handling of the case, say, if the jury were entirely biased. Presently, the valid prosecution of someone legitimately indicted for legitimate reasons is not sufficient proof to even hint at any totalitarianism.
Yet conspiratorial thought prevails. Trump’s strategy is to use conspiratorial thought for his politics, to later attain immunity when in office. Although not his sole interest in presidency, the power of the presidential pardon can alleviate Trump’s charges in his two federal cases, the Capitol riots and classified documents cases. Trump’s rhetoric, and vehicle in retaining popularity, is the manipulation of followers into conspiratorial thought.
Conspiratorial thought is a growing rhetoric among the right-wing, which entails belief in an ‘unknowingly oppressed’ society by an eerily unnameable ‘elite’. Tate’s theory of ‘the matrix’ which society are ‘slaves in’ provides a basic structure of this approach. In Trump’s position, this is that the government (and its agencies who are against him) have decided to charge him, following his campaign for re-election, to resist his return to presidency. This adopts an element of victimisation, where the indictments are an injustice designed to provoke supporters, with Trump framed as a hero fighting the resistance against him (typically paired with a virtue, like ‘the truth’). The assassination attempt on Trump in Pennsylvania, although only acted by one individual, framed itself as the elite’s attempt to remove Trump. ‘The elite’, although lacking identity, supposedly support the Democrats and those considered liberal. Musk, during interview, commented on “the machine that the Kamala puppet represents.”[7] Though it remains unusual that this strange syndicate cannot be identified. The elite acting against individuals, even resorting to assassination, seems wholly implausible in modern American politics. Historian Richard Hofstadter wrote about the notion of a ‘paranoid style’ existing in politics:
“The distinguishing thing about the paranoid style is not that its exponents see conspiracies or plots here and there in history, but that they regard a ‘vast’ or ‘gigantic’ conspiracy as the motive force in historical events.”
Richard Hofstadter [8]
As ever, American politics remains egocentric. However, democratic elections have taken the alarming turn towards legal influence – with all power in the hand of the voter. This is the true test of democracy, not only of whether it is successful, but whether it is right. Should the majority vote for Trump, and he uses presidency to worm out of legal charges, democracy has put a person above the law. Whether partisan prosecuting is real, and the Democrats have used legal means for political ends; or whether Trump’s rhetoric succeeds, and the Republicans have used political means for legal ends: the legal system’s function in the presidential election is clear, and morally ambiguous.
[1] Article II, Section II https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/constitution.htm
[2] https://youtu.be/AW_Bdf_jGaA?si=nKMTmr9M7tc567rJ&t=2268
[3] https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000187-4dd5-dfdf-af9f-4dfda6e80000
[4] https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/01/politics/what-happens-to-trumps-november-sentencing/index.html
[5] 13:51 https://hughhewitt.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/10-24hhs-trump.mp3
[6] https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2931&context=ulj
[7] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/k89aYdZOC_I
[8] https://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/