Politico op-ed suggests prosecutors offer negotiations in criminal cases to get Trump to accept election results

No.

There is absolutely no reason to believe he would honor such an agreement. I wouldn’t buy an apple from that asshole and I suspect I’m not the only one who feels this way. I suspect many prosecutors share this sentiment. Certainly, there are glaziers and landscapers in New Jersey who do this. Mrs. Glover must have an entire cabinet in her kitchen full of magic beans.

For Trump cases that have not yet gone to trial, this extraordinary agreement could take the form of a pretrial diversion agreement, which is commonly used to avoid trials if defendants agree to stay out of trouble. For the two cases that have already gone to trial (the hush money case and the civil fraud case), Trump could get a promise of reduced penalties. In return, he would just have to follow through on his promise to tell the truth about the election results.

Wait. I think my spleen just fell out of my nose.

A promise that he won’t lie again? Hell, I’m going to have to look through New York criminal law to see if such a draconian sentence doesn’t violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. I realize that several of Ms. Glover’s former clients…cough Dick Cheney cough– skated over crimes using the exalted public person defense, but this would extend that defense beyond the recommended limits.

Plus, what does this sordid arrangement do to all the other defendants in these various crimes? Does the deal include a walk for Mark Meadows, John Eastman and the rest of the props? Every free pass devalues ​​the rule of law, and there would have to be a lot of them for it to work.

Why would prosecutors – who spent countless hours building these cases against him and want justice – think this is a good idea?

They wouldn’t. Because that’s not the case.

As with any criminal prosecution, the reality is that the accused could be found not guilty in some or all cases. The Supreme Court’s recent decision granting presidents full immunity is sure to complicate prosecutions. And a New York appeals court recently expressed skepticism about the size of the financial penalty in the civil fraud case.

I think recent developments indicate very clearly that Prosecutor Jack Smith and Judge Tanya Chutkan feel ready to take on the challenge posed by Chief Justice John Roberts and his carefully crafted conservative majority. And I don’t think an appeals court can overturn a civil penalty at this point.

Additionally, Trump’s truthfulness about the election results is of inestimable value to the American people and our democracy. Does this matter to prosecutors (who represent “We the People”) in these cases? This should be the case. Every prosecutor takes an oath to protect the Constitution. The American people were denied a peaceful transition of power in 2020, and a aftermath in 2024 would only further erode democratic principles.

Ah, it’s the defense that “the American people are made of Belgian lace and should in no way be treated brutally”, the one that allowed Nixon to be pardoned, to ignore Iran-Contra and to introduce torture into the depths of history. I’m so fed up. The American people were not “denied” a peaceful transition of power. It was brutally taken from them by a gang of violent robbers at the behest of a criminal boss. The American people deserve their days in court. All.