Former President Donald Trump and his allies argue that the recent indictments against him are an attempt to criminalize ordinary political actions.
The Line Between Politics and Criminal Behavior
Quinta Jurecic argues that there is a clear distinction between acceptable political practices and actions that cross into criminal behavior.
Overturning an Election: Not Standard Politics
Jurecic dismisses the notion that attempting to overturn an election and maintain power against the will of voters is part of standard political maneuvering.
Violating Legal Boundaries
Prosecutors assert that Trump’s actions have violated legal boundaries, going beyond the norms of American politics.
Norms versus Legal Obligations
Trump’s disregard for norms raised questions about the legality of his actions, often answered with a resounding “yes.”
Exploiting Weak Controls
Trump expertly exploited areas where controls were weak, but these vulnerabilities highlighted the importance of norms.
Crossing Legal Lines
Concerns arose about whether Trump could be held accountable for actions that may have crossed legal lines but lacked established legal repercussions.
Undermining Election Integrity
Discontent with election results may not be illegal, but actively scheming to undermine the election’s integrity is a different matter.
Indictments are not a Guarantee of Conviction
While Trump’s indictments do not guarantee his conviction, they shed light on his alleged criminal activities.
Upholding Democracy through Laws
The foundations of American democracy are upheld not only by norms but also by laws that prevent actions crossing into criminal territory.
Not Criminalizing Politics, Addressing Alleged Crimes
The prosecutions against Trump are not about criminalizing politics but rather addressing alleged criminal activities.
Accountability Beyond Criminal Law
Accountability for Trump’s actions extends beyond criminal law, as the indictments demonstrate the importance of upholding democracy.
More from The Stock Dork – Trump’s Legal Team Challenges Protective Order, Citing First Amendment Concerns
Former President Donald Trump’s lawyers object to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s proposed protective order as it may violate Trump’s right to free speech.