While it does sound a bit ridiculous on the surface it isn't beyond questioning. However, I feel that the answer would be "no". Or rather, pending a very strong reason, he shouldn't be allowed. Obviously, he should still be permitted any reasonable recourse to ensure any trial is fair. But beyond anything major, I think the cases should be expedited if anything.
At this stage, judges at both the federal and state levels in numerous jurisdictions have found the evidence compelling enough to allow trials to move forward. So, even claims that this is some sort of witch-hunt or partisan attack are a bit thin. But, even if it were just a political witch-hunt and doomed to fail I'm not convinced that would change anything here.
If this came out of nowhere immediately after Trump had begun his re-election campaign then it might seen as meddling. This is why the Clinton emails were a scandal after all. The public was not generally aware of the allegations ahead of time and so bringing that knowledge into the public sphere had the risk of impacting the voters impression of Clinton. And, most reasonable people agree that they did change the outcome of the election.
However, it wasn't actual charges that the DoJ was considering withholding from the public, merely the existence of an investigation. Had the investigation yielded credible enough evidence to pursue a legal challenge it would have undoubtedly taken place regardless of the political impact.
If anything, while I see no issues hushing up an investigation to avoid the perception of political interference, if sufficient evidence has been collected to proceed with charges, it should happen FASTER and not slower in cases like this.
Criminal charges would make a candidate ineligible. But they are not sufficient to remove an official once elected. It is in the best interest of all that such a candidate never take office in the first place. And, it is of even more importance in the case of a candidate for the presidency.
While it is not uncommon for the courts to allow for delays, most delays pose no risk to the courts ability to carry out the judicial process. One thing which makes this case particularly unique is that it does.
A sufficient delay here could result in the trial not concluding before the completion of the election and inauguration. In which case, Trump could win and then become immune to the outcome. All this, despite the fact that both the events and charges would predate the inauguration.
So, the timing here could have a very real potential to impact the judicial process. As such, any judge in their right minds should see a timely trial as having an elevated importance relative to other cases.
Similarly, the courts also regularly take the character of the accused into account when making decisions. Bail, for example, is often denied if the accused is likely to attempt to interfere with the judicial process by doing something like attempting to leave the country or commit suicide. In Trump's case, he has already shown that he will not submit to the judicial branch as President and has even expressed a willingness to test the ability to pardon himself.
Prior to Trump's initial run as President, a lot of law around this was untested. And most prior presidents have stepped down in the face of Impeachment. But Trump's prior Presidency solidified a lot things. Firstly, it showed that impeachment is an inefficient, partisan weapon and law makers cannot be trusted to use it justly. Secondly, it has cemented that the Judicial process cannot be enacted against a sitting President. And then lastly, it has brought to surface the prospect that a sitting President could pardon themselves.
The second point makes the biggest argument. The Judicial branch is literally powerless against a sitting President. Thus, allowing a case where a presidential candidate is the defendant to be delayed beyond inauguration should only be permitted in extreme circumstances. In fact, any all delays should be seen as a possible move toward such an outcome and heavily scrutinized.
The third point makes character argument against Trump and further solidifies the threat of the prior point. And then the initial point makes a case that delays could even shield Trump from indirect damages. Where most impeached Presidents avoid sticking around long enough to be removed, Trump simply let his party handle it allowing him to deflect the one meagre tool government has at their disposal.
So, we come back to my initial point; there may be legitimate arguments for some delays in any trial. Even these ones. But, even reasonable requests should be weighted against the risk of the Judicial process being rendered ineffectual. If the requests for delays ARE legitimate and push the trial until after inauguration and Trump wins and shoots these down, then so be it. But, the courts should not allowed themselves to be abused to end of making such an outcome more plausible. Especially not in the face of a defendant clearly seeking that outcome.
Comments
Post a Comment