By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following Donald Trump’s reelection, both the Manhattan District Attorney and the New York Attorney General affirmed their intent to proceed with their respective cases against him. The DA argued that Trump’s conviction for falsifying business records does not warrant dismissal due to his presidency, proposing alternative sentencing options such as delaying sentencing or imposing no jail time. The Attorney General rejected Trump’s request to dismiss the $454 million civil fraud judgment, stating that presidential immunity does not apply to such cases involving unofficial conduct. Both legal battles are expected to continue throughout Trump’s term.
Read the original article here
The Manhattan District Attorney and the New York State Attorney General are adamant: Donald Trump’s criminal and civil cases in New York should absolutely not be dismissed simply because he’s the president. This stance is crucial for upholding the principle of equal justice under the law, a cornerstone of our democracy.
The notion that the presidency grants immunity from prosecution is fundamentally flawed. Numerous presidents throughout history have faced legal challenges during their terms, and the idea that Trump should be exempt sets a dangerous precedent. It undermines the very concept of accountability for those in power, suggesting that the highest office in the land offers a shield from the consequences of one’s actions.
This isn’t about partisan politics; it’s about the rule of law. It’s about ensuring that everyone, regardless of their position, is subject to the same legal standards. To dismiss these cases would be to send a clear message that power surpasses justice, a notion antithetical to a fair and equitable society. If the president is above the law, then the system is inherently broken.
The argument that pursuing these cases will disrupt the functions of the presidency is also weak. While it’s true that legal proceedings can be time-consuming and demanding, the judicial process exists to handle such matters efficiently. Procedures are in place to manage any potential conflicts, and these shouldn’t serve as a justification for granting special treatment. Furthermore, the potential harm to the nation caused by undermining the rule of law far outweighs any perceived disruption to presidential duties.
The suggestion that sentencing should be delayed until after Trump leaves office seems reasonable given the unique circumstances. But delaying sentencing should not be mistaken for a dismissal. It acknowledges the practical realities of having a sitting president face criminal proceedings, without sacrificing the principle of accountability. Justice delayed is not justice denied, and postponing sentencing allows the legal process to unfold without compromising the stability of the nation.
Conversely, proposals to avoid sentencing altogether, including the absurd notion of treating Trump as if he were deceased, are utterly unacceptable. These proposals actively undermine the integrity of the judicial system and fail to deliver justice. A conviction without a corresponding punishment renders the entire process meaningless. Such outcomes would create a perception of impunity and erode public trust in the fairness and effectiveness of our legal system. It’s imperative that a fitting punishment is levied, reflecting the seriousness of the offenses and deterring future misconduct. Even if a light sentence is handed down in recognition of the complexities, the conviction itself should stand as a testament to accountability, and it’s crucial to avoid sending a message that the law can be circumvented by simply holding a high office.
Concerns about the potential for a “constitutional crisis” are largely unfounded. The Constitution provides mechanisms for dealing with situations where a president is incapacitated or unable to perform their duties. The vice president is prepared to assume the presidency if such a scenario arises, and this well-established constitutional process is more than adequate to address any challenges related to a president facing legal consequences. The focus should be on applying the law consistently, not on avoiding a clearly established process out of fear of some hypothetical constitutional turmoil.
In conclusion, the argument for dismissing Donald Trump’s cases due to his presidency is weak and should be rejected. Maintaining the integrity of the judicial system and the principle of equal justice under the law requires that these cases proceed to their conclusion. Delaying the sentencing until after his term may be a practical compromise, but any attempt to avoid sentencing altogether is a blatant disregard for justice and the rule of law. Justice must be served, regardless of the individual’s political standing or position in society.