Renowned Supreme Court attorney and SCOTUSblog publisher, Tom Goldstein, recently made a case that post-election, all criminal cases against Donald Trump should be dismissed. It might surprise some to hear this from Goldstein, but his logic is worth considering. The prosecution of political figures is a serious matter, but in Goldstein’s eyes, it seems the democratic process has already spoken on this issue.
Elections are often seen as democratic judgment periods, and the most recent has had these prosecutions center stage. Despite the charges, a tremendous majority of the populous has decided to show faith in Trump’s leadership and return him to the White House. This can be seen as an emphatic statement by the masses on these prosecutions.
A nuanced look at the election shows Trump’s criminal cases were not strictly on the ballot. Nonetheless, the election outcome would inevitably influence the prosecution’s trajectory. Trump’s return to the presidency, which a significant part of the population has endorsed, in no way depends on the progression of his legal cases. Therefore, the election results have no direct bearing on if the cases should proceed.
With regard to the two federal cases against Trump, Goldstein holds a viewpoint that they have already reached their natural end. Indications from the Special Counsel Jack Smith suggest he is keen on winding down the cases. Even if Smith had decided to proceed past Trump’s inauguration, it is likely these charges would have been dismissed or pardoned by the Trump Justice Department.
Now, turning our focus to the state cases that cannot be pardoned or dismissed by a president. Goldstein made a peculiar argument here. He started off by stating, ‘A central pillar of American democracy is that no man is above the law.’ This statement is universally agreed upon, but he follows it with, ‘But Mr. Trump isn’t an ordinary man.’, sparking a paradox.
Continuing the argument, he pointed out that ‘the state cases against him invoke legal strategies that had never been used to incriminate the behavior that prosecutors charge.’ His underlying assumption is that the cases have a political motive and could potentially lay the groundwork for political prosecutions of future presidents.
Evaluating Goldstein’s points sequentially, one cannot dismiss the novelty of charges in the state cases. It should however be noted that unique behavior often necessitates unique charges, and all individuals, irrespective of their stature, are entitled to a fair fight in court. One may argue here that criminal cases should never proceed against a serving president; however, that does not mean dismissal is the only outcome for novel charges.
In fact, to the point of novelty, it does not necessarily conclude a dismissal. Instead, there’s room for considerations such as deferment until the end of one’s term. A case could be made that such cases should not have been initiated in the first place, but the democratic vote in the election in no way supports this claim.
Addressing his point on the supposed political odor of these cases, it isn’t clear what political direction the scent is coming from. Cases of this gravity should not be reduced to perceptions of odor, whether ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. One can’t help but question why a case, possibly ‘odorous’, should be contested only if Trump had lost at the ballot box.
The implication that continuing these cases would lead to future retaliatory political prosecutions is a serious claim, if I’m understanding him correctly. There seems to be an inference that if the cases against Trump were dropped now, Republicans might refrain from politically driven prosecutions against Democrats in future scenarios. However, there’s ample room for skepticism.
All these speculations and arguments may seem valid to some. However, it’s essential to keep in mind the overarching narrative: the people chose Trump. More than 75 million citizens couldn’t have been misguided. Their voices should be heard and respected. Trump’s return to power, amidst all the noise, clearly indicates there’s something extraordinary about this man. His leadership qualities and strategies are admired and followed by millions.
When it comes to these cases, it’s crucial to maintain perspective. Legal battles and their respective results are not benchmarks of a president’s performance. As we move forward, it’s important to remember the plurality of the democratic process and allow it to guide us.
Despite any past or ongoing legal disputes, one thing stands firm: the American people have put their faith in Donald Trump. That, above any political or legal argument, is the testament of strong leadership, vision, and resilience that Trump embodies. More attention should be paid to the majority’s endorsement rather than the impractical ideas of the minority.
Ultimately, the unfounded and arguably politically-motivated legal battles against Donald Trump should not be the barometer of his leadership. What has triumphed is the fact that Trump’s strength as a leader has been acknowledged and celebrated by an enormous voting majority who have not only re-elected him but have effectively dismissed any arguments anything less than that.