Dave Wainwright
2024-06-09 02:40:58 UTC
A Yale Law professor suggests there is another strategy former President
Donald Trump’s legal team could pursue to limit the impact of Manhattan
District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case on the 2024 presidential election,
after a New York jury found the former president guilty of 34 felony
counts of falsified business records.
In a newly-created podcast, titled Straight Down the Middle, Yale Law
Professor Jed Rubenfeld took a look at what legal options Trump’s
defense team have been left with following the jury’s verdict, as well
as the appeal process that is slated to soon take place.
The most obvious path for Trump’s legal team to take in an effort to
challenge the conviction is that of an appeal through the New York
Appeals Court system in hopes of ending up at the Supreme Court – a
process that Rubenfeld argued will take years to complete and could
result in “irreparable harm.”
“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,” Rubenfeld, a Constitutional law professor,
said on his podcast.
Pointing to surveys that show a “substantial number” of voters from the
American electorate who say they will still vote for Trump in the
upcoming presidential election if he is a convicted felon, Rubenfeld
said, “If that’s true, an unlawful conviction in this case could
interfere with, and in fact decide the outcome of, the next election of
the next President of the United States.”
“Even if the conviction were reversed on appeal years later, that effect
could not be undone. In legal terms, that’s called irreparable harm,”
Rubenfeld said.
If the conviction were to be reversed on appeal down the road, Rubenfeld
suggested that Bragg and Judge Juan Merchan would have “unlawfully
interfered with the election and decided the outcome of the next
election through unconstitutional means.”
“And no years-long appeal could have any effect on that,” he added.
Despite media reports, Rubenfeld insisted that it’s “not true” that
Trump is already a “convicted felon,” arguing that one is “not a
convicted felon because of a jury verdict.”
“You are not convicted until the judge enters that judgment of guilt.
Now, in New York, it’s very likely that Judge Merchan will enter that
judgment of guilt against Trump on the same day that he issues
sentencing. That’d be July 11th.”
Rubenfeld insisted there’s “one other avenue” Trump’s attorneys could
take in combating the conviction — to sue in federal court and “ask for
an emergency, temporary restraining order.”
Outlining what that effort would look like, Rubenfeld said: “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.”
Rubenfeld, expressing concern over how it’s a “bad look for this
country” to criminally target former presidents for “unclear” crimes,
also outlined what he believed to be problems with the case surrounding
Trump.
“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 said.
“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.”
‘”Even now, we don’t know exactly what the jury found Trump guilty of,”
Rubenfeld added.
Rubenfeld said those who criminally target members of opposing political
parties, in this case Trump, the “poll-leading candidate,” then they
“better have the goods.”
“You better not be pursuing some novel legal theory where you have to
hide the ball [and] it’s not even clear what the charges are,” he said.
“That could be a very dangerous precedent for this country. A very bad
and dangerous precedent.”
“That’s why it’s so important for a federal court to review the
constitutionality of this prosecution and decide was it constitutional
or was it not,” he added.
“The only way to achieve that before the election takes place is for the
Trump team to file an action in federal court and ask the federal court
to temporarily hold off the entry of the judgment of guilt until the
federal courts, and maybe the Supreme Court itself, can, on an emergency
basis, adjudicate the likelihood of success of these constitutional
arguments.”
If that doesn’t happen, Rubenfeld said, then “that ‘irreparable harm’
danger that I mentioned before, well, that’s where we are.”
“But if it does happen, the nation could get a ruling from the federal
courts, even the Supreme Court of the United States, before the election
takes place,” he said.
“Maybe that’s what the nation needs, and maybe that’s what the law
requires here.”
Last week, at his trial in Manhattan, Trump was found guilty by the jury
on all 34 counts of falsifying business records related to the hush
money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in the lead up to the
2016 presidential election.
Trump is scheduled to be sentenced on July 11 and could be sent to
prison, just days before the Republican National Convention is slated to
take place in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
https://nypost.com/2024/06/08/us-news/yale-law-professor-says-trump-isnt-a-convicted-felon-despite-guilty-verdict-heres-why/
Donald Trump’s legal team could pursue to limit the impact of Manhattan
District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case on the 2024 presidential election,
after a New York jury found the former president guilty of 34 felony
counts of falsified business records.
In a newly-created podcast, titled Straight Down the Middle, Yale Law
Professor Jed Rubenfeld took a look at what legal options Trump’s
defense team have been left with following the jury’s verdict, as well
as the appeal process that is slated to soon take place.
The most obvious path for Trump’s legal team to take in an effort to
challenge the conviction is that of an appeal through the New York
Appeals Court system in hopes of ending up at the Supreme Court – a
process that Rubenfeld argued will take years to complete and could
result in “irreparable harm.”
“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,” Rubenfeld, a Constitutional law professor,
said on his podcast.
Pointing to surveys that show a “substantial number” of voters from the
American electorate who say they will still vote for Trump in the
upcoming presidential election if he is a convicted felon, Rubenfeld
said, “If that’s true, an unlawful conviction in this case could
interfere with, and in fact decide the outcome of, the next election of
the next President of the United States.”
“Even if the conviction were reversed on appeal years later, that effect
could not be undone. In legal terms, that’s called irreparable harm,”
Rubenfeld said.
If the conviction were to be reversed on appeal down the road, Rubenfeld
suggested that Bragg and Judge Juan Merchan would have “unlawfully
interfered with the election and decided the outcome of the next
election through unconstitutional means.”
“And no years-long appeal could have any effect on that,” he added.
Despite media reports, Rubenfeld insisted that it’s “not true” that
Trump is already a “convicted felon,” arguing that one is “not a
convicted felon because of a jury verdict.”
“You are not convicted until the judge enters that judgment of guilt.
Now, in New York, it’s very likely that Judge Merchan will enter that
judgment of guilt against Trump on the same day that he issues
sentencing. That’d be July 11th.”
Rubenfeld insisted there’s “one other avenue” Trump’s attorneys could
take in combating the conviction — to sue in federal court and “ask for
an emergency, temporary restraining order.”
Outlining what that effort would look like, Rubenfeld said: “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.”
Rubenfeld, expressing concern over how it’s a “bad look for this
country” to criminally target former presidents for “unclear” crimes,
also outlined what he believed to be problems with the case surrounding
Trump.
“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 said.
“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.”
‘”Even now, we don’t know exactly what the jury found Trump guilty of,”
Rubenfeld added.
Rubenfeld said those who criminally target members of opposing political
parties, in this case Trump, the “poll-leading candidate,” then they
“better have the goods.”
“You better not be pursuing some novel legal theory where you have to
hide the ball [and] it’s not even clear what the charges are,” he said.
“That could be a very dangerous precedent for this country. A very bad
and dangerous precedent.”
“That’s why it’s so important for a federal court to review the
constitutionality of this prosecution and decide was it constitutional
or was it not,” he added.
“The only way to achieve that before the election takes place is for the
Trump team to file an action in federal court and ask the federal court
to temporarily hold off the entry of the judgment of guilt until the
federal courts, and maybe the Supreme Court itself, can, on an emergency
basis, adjudicate the likelihood of success of these constitutional
arguments.”
If that doesn’t happen, Rubenfeld said, then “that ‘irreparable harm’
danger that I mentioned before, well, that’s where we are.”
“But if it does happen, the nation could get a ruling from the federal
courts, even the Supreme Court of the United States, before the election
takes place,” he said.
“Maybe that’s what the nation needs, and maybe that’s what the law
requires here.”
Last week, at his trial in Manhattan, Trump was found guilty by the jury
on all 34 counts of falsifying business records related to the hush
money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in the lead up to the
2016 presidential election.
Trump is scheduled to be sentenced on July 11 and could be sent to
prison, just days before the Republican National Convention is slated to
take place in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
https://nypost.com/2024/06/08/us-news/yale-law-professor-says-trump-isnt-a-convicted-felon-despite-guilty-verdict-heres-why/