How a 1892 SCOTUS decision is 'setting up a spectacular legal clash' that could imperil US democracy: Trump biographer
A new analysis is explaining how former President Donald Trump's legal entanglements might change the trajectory of the United States democracy.
In a piece published by The Daily Beast, David Cay Johnston explained the issues surrounding Trump's latest legal challenges as he attempts to also run a presidential campaign. According to Johnston, the former president's worlds may be dangerously close to colliding.
"Donald Trump's 2024 campaign for the White House is about to collide with an 1892 Supreme Court decision and a federal criminal trial rule, setting up a spectacular legal clash that the Framers of our Constitution could never have imagined," Johnston wrote.
In true Trump fashion, the former president's legal team is already working to employ tactics of stalling to buy time.
"If you’ve followed Trump’s legal tactics closely—as I have for decades—gaming out this situation isn’t difficult," he wrote.
"Trump will ignore his right to a speedy trial starting within 100 days of any federal indictments," Johnston continued. "Instead, following the advice taught by his 'second father,' the notorious lawyer Roy Cohn, Trump’s strategy would likely be to delay using every tactic his legal team can conjure."
To be present for his presidential campaign, Trump's legal team would certainly need to stall as stipulation of under the 1892 Supreme Court decision, Lewis v. United States. That ruling would ultimately require the former president to attend "every minute of his trial," Johnston notes.
He went on to offer a hypothetical take on how things could pan out if Trump's legal team manages to succeed with its tactics.
READ MORE: 'There’s no upside for him': Donald Trump announces intent to avoid debate with Fox News moderator
"Should these delays tactics succeed, and were Trump to regain the White House, he could then pardon himself and his allies for any federal crimes they may have committed," he wrote. "That, in turn, would surely be challenged in a case that the Supreme Court, three of whose nine justices Trump appointed, ultimately would have to decide."
He also highlighted: "Nothing in our Constitution would prohibit a felon, even one serving time, from holding the office of president. However, Trump could be removed were he impeached by the House and then convicted by 67 senators. Whether those votes could be mustered is unknowable today."
