Prosecuting Donald Trump In The Stormy Daniels Case Seems To Be A Mistake

For any other politician, this would signal the end of a political career. In Mr Trump’s case, the question is to what extent prosecutors will act fuel for a movement that was flagging, Mr Trump has been fundraising for weeks behind his impending impeachment, which he predicted on social media on March 18. This turned out to be one of his more accurate posts.

If Mr. Trump has committed a crime, it would be wrong to avoid prosecuting him because it would put pressure on US government institutions. Other countries have successfully prosecuted former presidents and prime ministers: think Silvio Berlusconi in Italy or Nicolas Sarkozy in France. America should not endorse Richard Nixon’s view that if a president or a presidential candidate does, it is okay.

However, treating a former president like any other citizen cuts both ways. prosecutors prefer Manhattan District Attorney The (DA) has the discretion to decide which cases to bring. They must weigh the seriousness of the offence, the likelihood of conviction and the public interest in prosecution. That last part is the most controversial. About half of the American public is very interested in catching Mr. Trump; The other half feel they are being hunted by prosecutors. That half will hardly see the decision to pursue the case as evidence that justice is fair.

Then, what about the legal arguments? The specific allegations against Mr Trump will only be known once they are revealed, but the facts are as follows. In the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, Mr. Trump’s lawyer arranged to pay an actress in pornographic films to keep quiet about an alleged flirtation that occurred a decade earlier, a year before Mr. Trump’s marriage to his third wife. The hush-money was paid shortly before the 2016 presidential election and was not made public. The payment was described as “legal expenses” in the Trump Organization’s financial records. This was done by Mr. Trump’s attorney, who was then reimbursed by Mr. Trump.

Republicans once considered such behavior unworthy: a generation ago many people now think Mr. Trump is being unfairly persecuted for removing Bill Clinton from White House office because of an extramarital affair. Argued enthusiastically. Some Democrats, though acknowledging a dwindling number, manage to maintain the opposite position: While Mr. Clinton’s impeachment was unjust, the DA’s case against Mr. Trump is sound.

But morality and hypocrisy will not be tested in Manhattan. Prosecutors argue that the $130,000 payment to Stephanie Clifford (known as Stormy Daniels) broke campaign-finance and accounting rules. US campaign-finance laws are much more permissive than those of most other Western democracies, and their enforcement is rare and sporadic. In this case, Mr. Trump could be accused of effectively donating to his own campaign (which is legal), but not declaring it, which he probably isn’t.

That doesn’t mean the case against Mr. Trump is clear. Yes, his attorney, Michael Cohen, has already pleaded guilty to breaking campaign-finance rules. But Mr. Trump’s team will likely argue that any fault was Mr. Cohen’s (and point to the fact that Mr. Cohen also pleaded guilty to lying to Congress). Then there is the legal principle under which the case is likely to proceed. Labeling payments in accounts as legal expenses, another basis for prosecution, is a misdemeanor. But prosecutors will argue that the abuse made it possible to violate federal and state campaign-finance rules. Linking the two allegations in this way is novel. The judges can decide that it will not fly. The legal case against him in Fulton County, Georgia, where he is accused of interfering with election results, looks very strong.

Mr. Trump’s opponents, horrified at the idea of ​​him becoming president again, can, at this point, refer to Al Capone’s tax arrangements. This is a bit unfair to Mr Trump, who is not taken to assassinating rivals. There is also a misunderstanding of how the enrollment process works. Mr Trump had been found guilty he could still walk. If he is found innocent, he will claim that he has been acquitted and will add this to the charge sheet that he has been thrashed. Any result won’t necessarily change his odds of winning the general election: Some Americans are still unsure about what to make of Mr Trump. But, by making his prosecution a litmus test for other candidates, it will help him set the tone in the Republican primary. Other candidates will find it difficult to run against someone they agree is the victim of a politically motivated impeachment.

Before Mr Trump was elected in 2016, The Economist thought he would make a terrible president. His invitation to the crowd in Washington on January 6 should be disqualified. He remains a threat not only to America but also to the rest of the West. However, this should not cloud the judgment about the matter. Anyone who thinks that now is the moment when he has finally got his return is mistaken. If Mr Trump is to be prosecuted, it should be for something that cannot be dismissed on a technicality, and where the law is clear. The Manhattan DA’s case sounds like a mistake.

© 2023, The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved. From The Economist, published under license. Original content can be found at www.economist.com