Straight Down the Middle — The Trump Verdict —Ep. 1

Summary

The video script discusses the Trump hush money case, highlighting the constitutional issues surrounding the verdict. Law professor Jed Rubenfeld explains that Trump can still run for office despite the conviction and raises concerns about selective prosecution, the indictment's lack of specificity on the underlying crime, and the jury's non-unanimous decision on the election law violation. He suggests Trump's lawyers may appeal these constitutional questions and even seek a federal restraining order to halt the judgment of guilt until these issues are resolved.

Takeaways

• 🏆 Trump has been found guilty in the hush money case, but this does not prevent him from running for office or being elected president.
• 📖 The case revolves around a two-step crime: falsification of business records to conceal a second, unspecified crime related to campaign expenses.
• 🤔 The nature of the second crime is ambiguous, with the prosecution suggesting it could be a New York tax violation, a federal campaign finance violation, or a New York election law violation.
• 🎯 The indictment did not specify the underlying offense, which raises constitutional questions about the right to know the charges against a defendant under the Sixth Amendment.
• 🔍 There is debate over whether the prosecution is an instance of selective prosecution, which would be unconstitutional if proven to be motivated by political bias.
• 🤝 The jury was not required to be unanimous about the specific violation that constituted the second crime, which may conflict with constitutional requirements for a unanimous jury.
• 📚 Jed Rubenfeld, a law professor, suggests that there are serious constitutional issues with the case, including potential violations of the Sixth Amendment and the right to a fair trial.
• 📉 The case could have implications for the next presidential election, as polls indicate that a conviction might influence voters' decisions, potentially affecting the election's outcome.
• 📈 Trump's lawyers might consider suing in federal court for a temporary restraining order to halt the entry of a judgment of guilt until constitutional issues are resolved.
• 📝 The sentencing is scheduled for July 11th, and it is uncertain what the outcome will be, with the judge having discretion over the sentence, including the possibility of incarceration.
• 🚨 If the conviction is found to be unconstitutional after the appeal, the impact on the election could be irreparable, emphasizing the urgency and importance of resolving constitutional questions promptly.

Q & A

What is the significance of the Trump hush money case verdict according to the speaker?

The speaker emphasizes that the Trump hush money case is momentous and has serious constitutional implications, especially concerning the potential for a former or running president to become a target for criminal prosecution.

Can a former president or a presidential candidate be prevented from running for office due to criminal prosecution?

No, according to the speaker, states cannot decertify a candidate or remove them from the ballot based on criminal prosecution, including if the individual is found guilty of a felony.

What is the historical precedent for a presidential candidate running from jail?

The speaker mentions Eugene Debs, who ran for president from a federal penitentiary in 1920 and received almost a million votes, demonstrating that running for president from jail is possible.

What was Trump charged with in the hush money case?

Trump was charged with a two-step crime: falsification of business records to conceal a second crime, which the speaker suggests was likely a New York election law violation.

Why is the second crime in Trump's charges considered 'tricky'?

The second crime is tricky because the indictment did not specify what the second crime was, leading to uncertainty about what exactly the jury found Trump guilty of.

What constitutional issues are raised by the speaker regarding the Trump case?

The speaker raises issues of selective prosecution, the Sixth Amendment right to know the charges, and the potential for an unconstitutional non-unanimous verdict.

What is the argument against the indictment being constitutional due to the lack of specification of the second crime?

The argument is based on the Second Circuit case law that requires an indictment to identify the underlying offense when a crime depends on the violation of another statute, which the speaker suggests was not done in Trump's indictment.

Why might the speaker's suggested federal lawsuit be significant for Trump's case?

The suggested federal lawsuit could be significant because it could lead to a temporary restraining order preventing the entry of a judgment of guilt until federal courts, possibly even the Supreme Court, can review the constitutionality of the prosecution.

What is the potential 'irreparable harm' mentioned by the speaker in relation to the election?

The irreparable harm refers to the possibility that an unlawful or unconstitutional conviction could affect the outcome of the next presidential election, and even if reversed on appeal later, the effect on the election could not be undone.

What is the speaker's proposed action for Trump's lawyers in response to the verdict?

The speaker suggests that Trump's lawyers should file an action in federal court under Section 1983, asking for a temporary emergency restraining order to halt the entry of a judgment of guilt until the constitutionality of the case can be reviewed.