By Qamar Bashir
Former President Donald Trump has been charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying
business records in the first degree. These charges stem from an investigation into hush-
money payments made to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels to cover up an alleged affair
before the 2016 election. The charges, brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin
Bragg, allege that Trump, along with others, orchestrated a scheme to influence the
election by suppressing negative information about him, thus violating election laws.
Under New York state law, falsifying business records with the intent to defraud or
conceal another crime is a felony. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges and has
called them politically motivated..
The guilty verdict against Donald Trump has significant implications for his potential
presidential run in the upcoming elections. Legally, a felony conviction does not
automatically disqualify a candidate from running for or being elected as president, as the
U.S. Constitution does not list a criminal conviction as a disqualifying factor. Therefore,
despite the charges and any subsequent convictions, Trump can still contest the elections.
However, the charges and ongoing legal battles may influence voter perceptions, divert
campaign resources, and attract intense public and media scrutiny, potentially impacting
his campaign’s effectiveness.
There have been numerous claims that the verdict against Donald Trump is biased, with
critics arguing that the jury was selected to include individuals predisposed against him.
Concerns have been raised about the impartiality of the jurors, suggesting that the
selection process was manipulated to ensure an anti-Trump outcome.
Additionally, Trump's supporters have accused the presiding judge, Juan Merchan, of
bias. They claim that his rulings were unfairly prejudicial against Trump, indicating a
judicial partiality. Judge Merchan, known for his tough but fair approach, has faced
scrutiny in this high-profile case where the stakes are particularly high. Allegations of
judicial bias are common in politically charged cases, but there has been no substantiated
evidence provided to support these claims against Judge Merchan specifically.
The most prominent claim is that the Biden administration is using the legal system to
undermine Trump's credibility ahead of the 2024 election. Critics argue that the timing
and nature of the charges are politically motivated, suggesting a coordinated effort to
discredit Trump and prevent him from running for office again. Prominent Trump
supporters, including his legal team and political allies like Representative Marjorie
Taylor Greene and Senator Lindsey Graham, have publicly denounced the charges as part
of a broader campaign to silence Trump. While the investigation was initiated by the
Manhattan District Attorney's office, which operates independently of the federal
government, the perception of political motivation remains strong among Trump's
supporters.
The guilty verdict against Donald Trump carries significant implications for his future.
Legally, it could result in penalties such as fines, probation, or imprisonment if the
conviction is upheld. Politically, it may harm his reputation and influence, complicating
any potential 2024 presidential run. Personally, the ongoing legal battles and public
scrutiny will take a considerable financial and emotional toll.
Trump has several forums available for appealing the verdict. Initially, his legal team can
file post-trial motions in the trial court that delivered the verdict, requesting a new trial or
to set aside the verdict based on procedural errors or new evidence. If these motions are
unsuccessful, he can appeal to the intermediate appellate court, which in New York is the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.
If the Appellate Division upholds the conviction, Trump can further appeal to the New
York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, which has the discretionary power to
select cases of significant legal or public interest. In certain circumstances, if there are
claims of constitutional violations or issues of federal law, Trump could take his case to
federal courts, potentially leading to the U.S. Supreme Court, although this requires
substantial legal grounds.
The success of Trump's appeals will depend on several factors, including the strength of
his legal arguments. Demonstrating significant legal errors during the trial or presenting
new evidence that materially impacts the verdict could improve his chances. Historically,
appeals have seen varying degrees of success based on these grounds. For example, in
*United States v. Skilling* (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the
honest services fraud statute, leading to a resentencing for former Enron CEO Jeffrey
Skilling.
While appellate courts are generally deferential to the trial court's findings of fact, they
thoroughly review alleged legal errors. High-profile cases attract significant public and
media attention, which can indirectly influence the legal environment. Trump's case will
likely follow this pattern, impacting the procedural aspects of the appeal process. Overall,
Trump's path forward involves leveraging the appellate mechanisms, with success
hinging on the robustness of his legal arguments and the interpretations of the appellate
courts.
If Trump is elected president and later declared guilty by the final federal court, several
complex constitutional questions would arise. One major issue would be presidential
immunity. The U.S. Department of Justice has maintained that a sitting president cannot
be indicted or prosecuted, based on concerns about the separation of powers and the
executive branch's functionality. This stance was notably referenced during the
investigations into Presidents Nixon and Clinton. However, this opinion is not legally
binding and could be challenged.
Another potential consequence of a final guilty verdict could be impeachment. If Trump
were convicted of serious crimes, Congress could pursue impeachment and removal from
office, which is the constitutional mechanism for addressing presidential misconduct. The
process and outcome would depend on the political climate and the composition of
Congress at the time. Historical precedents, such as the impeachments of Nixon (who
resigned before he could be impeached) and Clinton, provide some context but no direct
parallels, as no president has been convicted of a crime while in office.
Ultimately, any legal battles over presidential immunity or the ability to prosecute a
sitting president could reach the U.S. Supreme Court, which would have the final say on
these unprecedented issues. While Trump can legally run for and serve as president
despite his legal troubles, the implications of a final guilty verdict would introduce
significant constitutional complexities and potential political turmoil.
