According to Fox News, a Yale Law professor has suggested an alternative legal strategy for Trump's team to mitigate the effects of the Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's case on the 2024 presidential election.
The guilty verdict on 34 counts of falsifying business records triggers significant repercussions for the upcoming 2028 presidential race. This approach aims to limit the impact of the guilty verdict on Trump's political future.
Yale Law professor Jed Rubenfeld discussed possible legal strategies for Trump in his latest episode of "Straight Down the Middle." Rubenfeld outlined key steps, including an exhaustive appeal through New York's court system, potentially reaching the U.S. Supreme Oct 31, 2024, is a notable anticipated development, raising concerns over the penal ramifications Trump might face just days before the Republican National Convention.
Trump's legal team contemplates filing a restraining order in a federal court to delay the sentencing pending further constitutional review. This move responds to the concern that the sentencing may interfere unduly with political proceedings.
Jed Rubenfeld criticized the political undercurrents of this prosecution. "Going after, criminally, a former president of the United States and somebody who is running for president now, that's a very bad look for this country," he noted in his podcast.
The case's timing and its potential influence over the upcoming presidential election elevate the stakes, making the strategy not just about Trump's innocence or guilt but also about the broader implications for U.S. democracy. Rubenfeld expressed that the case's handling could set a concerning precedent.
Concerning the timing and its effects, Jed Rubenfeld stated:
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 election.
"If that's true, an unlawful conviction in this case could interfere with, and decide the outcome of, the next election of the next President of the United States," Rubenfeld further elaborated.
Additional concerns arise from the characterization of Trump as a "convicted felon" in media portrayals, which Rubenfeld argues is premature and potentially misleading.
Given the political affiliations of the prosecutor and the judge, the fairness of the judicial process has also been a focal point of contention. Rubenfeld finds the circumstances of the trial to be notably partisan, which he believes could undermine public trust in the judicial system.
"It's an especially bad look when the folks bringing the case and the judge deciding it are members of the opposing political party. And it's an even worse look when the crime is so unclear that the state is hiding the ball about what the actual charges are right up through the trial and indeed into the trial," commented Rubenfeld.
The conviction's appeal process could extend well into the future, possibly not resolving until after significant electoral events have passed. As Rubenfeld puts it, "Even if the conviction were reversed on appeal years later, that effect could not be undone. In legal terms, that's called irreparable harm."
This case underscores the intricate interplay between law and politics at the highest levels of power in the U.S., ripe with implications that may influence legal and electoral outcomes for years to come.
