Former President Donald Trump at the Manhattan Criminal Court room Talking to the pool and in courtroom at trial in NYC May 30 2024.
However, in the meantime, Yale Law professor Jed Rubenfeld has launched a new podcast, ‘Straight Down the Middle,’ arguing that the ex-president is not yet a convicted felon.
Further dissecting how Trump's legal team could soften the blow of the criminal trial's verdict on the upcoming presidential elections, Rubenfeld weighed in on the options the former president has.
Yale Law professor weighs in on Trump's guilty hush money trial verdict, questions the Constitutional issues facing the convictionConsidering the conviction was to be reversed on appeal years later, Rubenfeld further emphasised that the ill effects would have already transpired by then.
He explained further, “You are not convicted until the judge enters that judgment of guilt.
Following last week's hush money trial in Manhattan, former President Donald Trump was found guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records related to the 2016 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels around the time of the then-presidential election. Former President Donald Trump at the Manhattan Criminal Court room Talking to the pool and in courtroom at trial in NYC May 30 2024. Mark Peterson/Pool via REUTERS(via REUTERS)
The 2024 Republican presumptive nominee will be sentenced on July 11, which could ultimately send him to prison just in time for the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
However, in the meantime, Yale Law professor Jed Rubenfeld has launched a new podcast, ‘Straight Down the Middle,’ arguing that the ex-president is not yet a convicted felon. Further dissecting how Trump's legal team could soften the blow of the criminal trial's verdict on the upcoming presidential elections, Rubenfeld weighed in on the options the former president has.
The Constitution law professor argued that while Trump could challenge the conviction with an appeal through the New York Appeals Court system as a means to move the Supreme Court, it “would take years” to work in his favour and could even deal out “irreparable harm.”
Also read | Joe Biden warns Vladimir Putin 'not going to stop at Ukraine' in joint presser with Macron
“Of course, that would take years, and that's a problem here… It's a problem because the election will have taken place if this conviction is unlawful and unconstitutional, it could have an effect on that election,” said Rubenfeld on his podcast.
Yale Law professor weighs in on Trump's guilty hush money trial verdict, questions the Constitutional issues facing the conviction
Considering the conviction was to be reversed on appeal years later, Rubenfeld further emphasised that the ill effects would have already transpired by then. “… that effect could not be undone. In legal terms, that's called irreparable harm,” he added.
Also, turning to surveys demonstrating a considerable surge in Trump's popularity since the guilty verdict, with many voters claiming they would still vote for the former president if he is convicted, Rubenfeld said, “… 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 to be reversed upon Trump's appeal down the line, “no years-long appeal could have any effect on that,” the law professor foregrounded. Furthermore, he suggested that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Judge Juan Merchan would have already “unlawfully interfered with the election and decided the outcome of the next election through unconstitutional means.”
Also read | Nikki Haley takes strong stand after facing ire for writing ‘finish them’ on Israeli artillery shell
Rubenfeld struck down the ongoing string of media reports insisting that Trump is already a “convicted felon.” Laying down that one is “not convicted because of a jury verdict, the professor slammed the ongoing claims as ”not true." He explained further, “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.”
At the same time, Rubenfeld detailed how it was a “very bad look for this country” to criminally target a former president. He insisted, “It's an especially bad look when the folks bringing the case and the judge deciding it are members of the opposing political party.” Additionally, stating Trump's crime as “so unclear,” he alleged that the state was “hiding the ball about what the actual charges are right up through the trial and… into the trial.”
Reiterating that we're not exactly sure of what the jury found Trump guilty of, he said, "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.”
Diving even deeper into members of opposing political parties supposedly criminally targeting the “poll-leading candidate” Trump, the ‘Straight Down the Middle’ podcast creator set aside that if the involved officials were pursuing “some novel legal theory” that had them “hide the ball” while shrouding the charges in mystery, they were essentially setting a “very dangerous precedent for this country.”
Consistently dwelling on the “constitutionality of this prosecution,” Rubenfeld put the onus on the federal court's reviews on the matter. He also affirmed Trump's agency here, stating that his team could make it possible by filing 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.”
However, if that fails, Rubenfeld underlined the said “irreparable harm” would follow.
