Donald Trump, famously, was indicted four times in four separate jurisdictions during the four years he was out of office. Thanks to a combination of the slowness of the prosecutions, the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity, the implosion of the racketeering case in Georgia, and Trump’s return to the presidency, Trump was not punished in any meaningful way in any of the cases.
He was, however, convicted, on 34 counts, in the hush money case in state court in New York, in a case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Ten days before he returned to office, Trump was sentenced with an unconditional discharge, which meant no jail time, but also that the conviction would stand. So, Trump returned to office as the first convicted felon ever to serve as president of the United States.
Now, one legal commentator says another case should be brought against Trump.
Another New York Case for Donald Trump?
In Slate, UCLA law professor Jonathan Zasloff argues that Trump has broken the law in New York again and that Bragg should indict him again.
At issue is what Trump has recently been doing with law firms that have crossed him in the past. These major firms — Perkins Coie, Paul, Weiss, Covington & Burling, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale — have been threatened by Trump in various ways. He has threatened to pull security clearances and block the law firms from entering public property, which could meaningfully threaten their ability to do business.
Some of those firms have agreed to “settlements” in which they decide to do pro bono work and other favors for Donald Trump in exchange for the threatened restrictions going away.
According to Zasloff, this is extortion and should result in more charges from the office of Bragg.
“Coercion in the Third Degree”
The author argues that Trump’s action falls under the statute that, in New York, is called “coercion,” and that it applies to Trump’s treatment of Paul, Weiss, a law firm that is headquartered in New York.
“He compelled the firm to cease engaging in legal activity that it had a right to engage in (practicing law on behalf of its clients) by threatening damage to Paul, Weiss’ property—its business—and by threatening to abuse his position, denying the firm security clearances and blocking their access to federal property,” Zasloff writes of Trump’s actions.
The author also goes on to make the case that Donald Trump may also be guilty of coercion in the first degree, in the case of the administration’s treatment of Paul Weiss.
Why Not Charge Donald Trump?
Haters of Trump, hoping this is the case that will lead to his final downfall, shouldn’t get their hopes up. And not only because all those years of legal jeopardy didn’t appear to do a thing to sap Trump’s political power and, if anything, may have added to it.
As noted by Zasloff, it is longstanding Justice Department policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted, which is part of why Trump avoided indictment for obstruction of justice following the Mueller investigation. (One of the firms, WilmerHale, long employed Robert Mueller, which is likely why Trump is going after that particular firm.)
Also, Trump going after the law firms, shady as it may be, is likely an immunized “official act,” under the U.S. Supreme Court decision last year on presidential immunity. And if Trump’s past indictments are any indication, an indictment would likely be fought over for years, with individual constitutional questions about it going back and forth through the courts for an extended period.
There doesn’t appear to be any indication that Bragg has launched an investigation or is considering such charges.
Of the DOJ policy and immunity questions, Zasloff argues that “ultimately, though, neither of these factors should matter. We are in a constitutional emergency, and Trump’s likely criminal actions in these cases is only deepening that crisis.”
About the Author: Stephen Silver
Stephen Silver is an award-winning journalist, essayist and film critic, and contributor to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Broad Street Review and Splice Today. The co-founder of the Philadelphia Film Critics Circle, Stephen lives in suburban Philadelphia with his wife and two sons. For over a decade, Stephen has authored thousands of articles that focus on politics, technology, and the economy. Follow him on X (formerly Twitter) at @StephenSilver, and subscribe to his Substack newsletter
