In the lead-up to the next presidential election, a report from Raw Story, dated Tuesday, November 28, 2023, suggests a notable trend among supporters of former President Donald Trump. Analysts believe that there is a heightened probability that these voters might rally behind a candidate grappling with unresolved criminal cases.
Former Chief of the Fraud and Public Corruption Section in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Randall D. Eliason, expressed grave concerns about the implications of holding an election under such circumstances. Drawing a historical parallel, he stated, “As Richard Nixon might have put it, voters have a right to know whether their candidate is a crook. It can be avoided, but it’s going to require the judiciary to take some extraordinary steps.”
Eliason, writing in The New York Times, emphasized that the decision ultimately rests in the hands of a select group of federal jurists, including those appointed by Mr. Trump himself. He raised the possibility that Trump’s legal battles might extend beyond the upcoming election, potentially allowing him to halt federal prosecutions and delay state prosecutions if victorious.
More Read
The potential consequences of an election featuring a candidate with unresolved criminal liability, particularly related to the events of January 6th, could pose a substantial threat to the rule of law. Eliason suggested that the judiciary, particularly those overseeing trial schedules, must take swift action to expedite the resolution of these motions to prevent such a scenario.
“Having an election with Mr. Trump on the ballot and his criminal liability for Jan. 6 unresolved could spell disaster for the rule of law. It’s also completely avoidable if the courts — and in particular, the judges who control the schedule — are willing to do what’s necessary: put the resolution of these motions on a fast track to ensure the case can go to trial as scheduled,” Eliason stressed.
While acknowledging that judges are typically prohibited from considering political factors in their decisions, Eliason argued that the current situation represents a unique “time of crisis.” He contended that the federal judiciary cannot ignore this crisis and must act promptly to enable the political system to address it.
“The federal judiciary cannot simply turn a blind eye. It must respond in a way that will enable the political system to address that crisis in a timely manner. This is one of those times,” Eliason concluded.
