News
07.06.24
A Prisoner President? The Journey of Donald Trump’s Court Case
Donald Trump made headlines last week when a New York jury found him guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records. In a statement issued by the former U.S. President following the verdict, Trump claimed that the trial was “rigged” and that the “real verdict” would be on “November 5th, by the people,” referring to the next presidential election in the United States.
For those of you who haven’t been following the journey of Trump’s court case leading up to this verdict, it was alleged that during his 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump made a payment of $US 130,000.00 to an adult film star named Stormy Daniels, in exchange for her silence about a claim that the pair had sex about a decade earlier.
Prosecutors had alleged that Donald Trump falsified a series of business records in an attempt to hide the payment, a felony offence in New York. Donald Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records, and on June 1st, 2024, a jury found him guilty of all 34 counts.
The matter has been set for sentencing on July 11th, 2024, when Donald Trump will learn his fate in relation to his conviction and, in particular, whether or not he will be sent to jail in relation to the offences.
Throughout the trial, Donald Trump’s lawyers argued that the case was infected by prosecutorial overreach and political bias. Trump’s team effectively sought to portray the case as a politically motivated witch hunt orchestrated by Trump’s adversaries to tarnish his reputation rather than one borne of genuine legal concern.
That sentiment was echoed in Trump’s statement following the verdict, where he maintained his innocence and portrayed the charges and the trial as some sort of unfair attack on him in an attempt to besmirch his chances at the next presidential election later this year.
These charges weren’t the only ones Trump was facing. He is currently the Defendant in three other separate criminal cases relating to his conduct following the 2020 election and secret documents allegedly taken from the White House and found at his property in Florida.
So, what does this all mean? If Trump is going to jail, could he still run for President, either of his convictions in New York or if he is convicted of the other charges he is currently facing? The short answer is yes, he can.
Let’s look at the framework for the presidency in the United States of America. Under the Constitution, a person can be the President President of the United States of America if that person:
- is older than 35;
- was born a U.S Citizen; and
- has been a U.S Resident for more than 14 years.
In short, no explicit constitutional provision would prohibit Donald Trump from running for or serving as President of the United States of America following his conviction.
That being said, if Donald Trump is incarcerated in relation to those felonies, or the other crimes he is alleged to have committed, it is likely that his incarceration would result in significant logistical challenges in carrying out his duties as President of the United States of America.
His inability to attend meetings, conduct diplomacy, and sign legislation are some practical examples of these logistical challenges, and that is before we even consider the potential political ramifications of a sitting President being convicted and imprisoned.
It is likely that the public and political pressure for resignation or impeachment would be immense and would likely render his appointment untenable. It would, in my view, send a very harmful message to the U.S. public that is; the President is above the Law.
To contrast the U.S. Constitution with the Australian Constitution, a person in Australia who has been convicted of an offence punishable under the Law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory by imprisonment for one year or longer is disqualified from sitting in the House of Representatives.
There are many arguments and calls for reform concerning our “disqualification” provisions here in Australia. There is much to be said about whether or not these provisions result in inequity. However, there is one thing that those from all ends of the political spectrum appear to agree on, and that is a person who is not fit and proper should not hold parliamentary office.
The reason for that is important. It is imperative that the public trust their political leaders to ensure effective governance, trust in institutions, legitimacy of government, democratic participation, and social cohesion—all of which are tenets of a healthy, functioning democracy. If those who are not fit for office take up positions of power, there is a real risk that the public’s confidence in the political system will wane.
Whilst it is easy to dismiss a verdict that has taken place so far from our shores, Australia can and should be invested in the happenings of U.S. politics as a close friend and ally to the United States, particularly when decisions made in Washington can and do have an impact on Australian policy. The verdict serves as a reminder of the importance of holding powerful people accountable for their actions.
If nothing else, Donald Trump’s conviction and his flagrant disregard for the verdict make one thing clear: he is not fit for office.