Listen To Story Above

In a surprising turn of events, The New York Times published an opinion piece advocating for the dismissal of all criminal cases against Donald Trump following his recent electoral victory.

The article, penned by Thomas Goldstein, a distinguished former appellate attorney and Harvard Law School lecturer who publishes the SCOTUS blog, presented a compelling argument for abandoning the legal proceedings.

“With the election now over, the courts have to decide quickly whether to move forward with the criminal cases against Donald Trump. Although this idea will pain my fellow Democrats, all of the cases should be abandoned,” Goldstein stated in his November 15 piece.

Goldstein, who represented Al Gore during the historic Bush v. Gore case in 2000, emphasized how Trump’s victory – securing 312 Electoral College votes to 226, and approximately 76.8 million popular votes compared to Kamala Harris’s 74.3 million – reflects the public’s verdict on these prosecutions.

Currently, Trump faces four criminal cases, though the landscape is shifting. The Department of Justice has indicated special counsel Jack Smith’s federal cases won’t proceed. In New York, Judge Juan Merchan has removed the sentencing hearing from the calendar in the Manhattan DA’s case, while Georgia’s election interference case remains suspended at the state Court of Appeals.

“[T]he prosecutors’ legal theories were and are unusual, to say the least. Their premise is that financial shenanigans and political strong arming in hard-fought battles for the presidency are serious felonies that can be pursued by local prosecutors in local courts. But these are fundamentally federal, not state, concerns,” Goldstein wrote.

He further argued: “For many Democrats, dismissing the cases feels profoundly wrong because they see them as the last chance to bring Mr. Trump to justice. In truth, support for the cases among many Democrats doesn’t seem to be based on confidence in the prosecutors’ legal theories and evidence. Instead, it seems to be driven by politics and hatred of Mr. Trump. That reinforces why they must be dismissed.”

Goldstein warned that allowing these cases to continue could set a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to Republican prosecutors targeting Democratic candidates in the future. He concluded his piece stating, “[T]he Constitution isn’t concerned with preserving a couple of criminal cases. It is concerned with having a system of government that can hold our democracy together for centuries.”

The publication of this opinion by The New York Times, traditionally critical of Trump, marks a significant shift in the discourse surrounding these legal proceedings.