Yale Law Professor Jed Rubenfeld explored how former President Donald Trump's legal team could navigate his recent conviction to minimize impacts on the 2024 presidential election.
The New York Post reported that former President Donald Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts of falsified business records at the Manhattan criminal court. These charges stemmed from alleged payments made to silence adult film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election, aiming to conceal this during the critical moments leading up to Trump's first presidential campaign.
As the political world reacts, Trump's sentencing has been scheduled for July 11, 2024, just before the Republican National Convention.
This timing is crucial as it sits at the forefront of another presidential election cycle, where Trump remains a significant figure despite his legal troubles.
In his podcast "Straight Down the Middle," Jed Rubenfeld, a professor from Yale Law, provided a detailed analysis of Trump's potential legal strategies post-conviction.
Rubenfeld's insights focus on the long appeal process through the New York court system, which could potentially extend to the Supreme Court.
Rubenfeld expressed concerns about the timeline of the appeals. "Of course, that would take years, and that’s a problem here. Why is it a problem? It’s a problem because the election will have taken place and if this conviction is unlawful and unconstitutional, it could have an effect on that engagement," explained Rubenfeld.
He labeled such consequences as "irreparable harm" since they could interfere with and possibly decide the outcome of the upcoming presidential election.
According to Rubenfeld, Trump is not yet a convicted felon, a title that only comes into effect once a judge enters the judgment of guilt. This is crucial in understanding the technicality that Trump’s legal argument might hinge on as his team might challenge the legality of the conviction before that judgment is officially entered.
Rubenfeld proposed another intriguing legal strategy involving federal court intervention. He suggests that Trump could initiate a lawsuit against Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and other involved state actors.
The objective would be to obtain an emergency, temporary restraining order that would halt the entry of the judgment of guilt until federal courts review the constitutional challenges posed by Trump's legal team.
"In this federal action, Trump would sue District Attorney Bragg and other state actors and ask the judge, the federal judge, for an emergency temporary restraining order halting Judge Merchan from entering that judgment of guilt until the federal courts have had an opportunity to review and rule out the serious constitutional arguments that exist here," stated Rubenfeld in his podcast.
Rubenfeld also criticized the optics of criminally pursuing a former president who is actively partaking in a presidential race, dubbing it "a very bad look for this country," especially when the opposing political party’s members are the prosecutors and the judge.
Further adding to the controversy, Rubenfeld pointed out the lack of transparency regarding the exact charges and their specifics, which remained ambiguous throughout the trial. "Even now, we don’t know exactly what the jury found Trump guilty of," he said, emphasizing the complexities and potential biases in the legal interpretation of Trump’s actions.
Despite the conviction, surveys suggest that a substantial number of voters might still support Trump in the upcoming election. This support demonstrates the polarized views on Trump's presidency and the legal battles trailing it.
As Trump’s sentencing approaches, questions about the integrity of legal proceedings and their intertwining with political campaigns remain potent.
Professor Jed Rubenfeld’s analysis of the potential for "irreparable harm" highlights the dramatic stakes involved, not just for Trump but for the electoral process as a whole. With the possibility of pursuing a long appeal and even federal court actions in play, the trajectory of this legal battle will be closely watched as it may influence the very fabric of American democracy.