The Costly Verdict: Trump Prosecution's Unforeseen Damage to Constitutional Norms

The Manhattan jury's verdict against Donald Trump has not only harmed his reputation but also threatens to undermine long-standing constitutional principles and norms essential for a stable electoral system and the optimal functioning of the presidency.

The recent verdict against Donald Trump, rendered by a Manhattan jury, has sparked widespread debate and raised concerns about its potential impact on our legal system. While the prosecution may have achieved its aim of damaging Trump's reputation, its reckless pursuit of charges has come at a high cost to our constitutional order.

Traditionally, presidents have been shielded from prosecution after leaving office. This practice has fostered a sense of statesmanship and prevented the criminal justice system from becoming a political weapon. However, the Trump verdict breaks with this precedent, setting a dangerous example for future political prosecutions.

The Manhattan District Attorney's decision to charge Trump with bookkeeping errors, upgraded to a felony based on an alleged violation of federal election law, raises serious questions about the rule of law. Prosecutors, under the principle of prosecutorial discretion, have wide latitude in selecting cases to pursue. However, this discretion should not be abused to target political opponents or punish unpopular individuals.

The Trump case highlights the importance of equal treatment under the law. The same charges that Trump is now facing have never been brought against any other individual. This selective enforcement undermines the fundamental principle of the rule of law, which requires that like cases be treated alike.

Trial judge Juan Merchan's rulings have drawn criticism for allowing prejudicial testimony and restricting the defense's ability to present a strong case. These decisions raise concerns about judicial overreach and the potential for unfair trials in politically charged cases.

Merchan's decision to allow the prosecution to withhold the second, greater crime allegedly enabled by the bookkeeping shenanigans until the end of the trial violates Trump's constitutional right of clear notice of the charges. Additionally, the DA's enforcement of his personal version of federal election law encroaches on the federal government's exclusive authority to prosecute violations of federal law.

The threat of criminal prosecution from state authorities could have a chilling effect on presidents, forcing them to consider political risks over national emergencies and other pressing issues. This would undermine the Constitution's concentration of executive power in the presidency.

The Trump prosecution appears to be driven by political motivations rather than a genuine pursuit of justice. Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan DA, has a history of making politically charged statements and has been criticized for selective enforcement against Trump.

The Trump verdict has far-reaching implications for the future of our constitutional order. It sets a precedent for the prosecution of former presidents, erodes the rule of law, and empowers prosecutors to weaponize the criminal justice system for political gain.

The verdict against Trump may have served its purpose of harming his reputation, but it has also dealt a significant blow to our constitutional norms. The prosecution's recklessness has sacrificed the very institutions that have protected our political stability for the sake of stopping a single individual. Progressives who celebrate Trump's conviction should instead lament the loss of these invaluable principles that have served our nation so well for so long.