Despite Trump’s Felony Conviction, Prosecutorial Liberalism Has Failed

Liberals have little to cheer about right now, so watch Friday’s news that a New York court has convicted Donald Trump of paying hush money to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. So, it’s no wonder he’s a little overjoyed. . There is certainly some satisfaction in Trump’s discomfort with sentencing. recorded by new york times: “Folded his arms and frowned. President-elect Donald J. Trump avoided prison, but became a felon.” President Trump’s conservatives were happily outraged. FOX News host John Roberts sputtered“He now has a big scarlet F on his forehead and the branding of being a convicted felon, ah, Donald Trump,” Roberts continued, adding that the conviction means ” “It was made up to smear Donald Trump.”

On the other hand, tennis legend Martina Navratilova There was a buzz“Convicted felon Donald J. Trump certainly has something of that, doesn’t he?” Other liberals Listed with great joy Many countries that Donald Trump would be banned from entering as a felon (this joke becomes less funny once you realize that as President of the United States he can easily waive the normal rules).

Stepping outside the immediate partisan reaction, Trump’s felony conviction appears to be a small victory for liberalism masking a much larger and more devastating defeat. Even if one welcomes the small symbolic justice of a felony conviction, it is not the most serious criminal case President Trump has faced, and both judges and prosecutors have responded to it. We rarely celebrate the fact that we agree that there should be no punishment. . as new york times report:

Trump once faced up to four years in prison for falsifying business records to cover up a sex scandal, but on Friday he received only so-called unconditional release. The sentence was a rare and lenient alternative to prison or probation and reflected the practical and constitutional impossibility of imprisoning the president-elect.

In other words, this conviction does not reflect the end of President Trump’s lifelong impunity, but rather a new manifestation of that impunity. As Trump moves toward the White House, other criminal cases against him are effectively over. On Friday, Special Counsel Jack Smith, who was overseeing the investigation into President Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his handling of classified documents, said: resigned. The Lincoln Project, a conservative anti-Trump group, captured the contradictions of the times this way: pay attention“Donald Trump ran to avoid punishment for his crimes, and it worked. The fact remains that he is a 34-time convicted felon.”

Indeed, Trump’s toothless felony conviction on the eve of his return to the White House is not a time for jubilation, but rather prompts sober reflection among anti-Trump forces about the failures of prosecutorial liberalism. It should be. The use of prosecutors and courts to counter Trump has been the focus of much liberal energy over the past decade, but it has been a failed strategy that has only strengthened Trump in the end.

Back in 2017, I I wrote a column for new republic So I questioned the belief of many liberals that prosecutors like Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller were targeting Trump and trying to neutralize him as a political force. I argued that

[relying] Criticizing Mr. Rosenstein and Mr. Mueller as barriers to President Trump’s worst excesses is a classic example of the trap liberals have fallen into time and time again when addressing presidential abuses of power: This is a tradition of “prosecutorial liberalism,” which seeks legal remedies instead. The president’s misdeeds. Such an approach is dangerous because it allows lawmakers to shift political problems to apolitical law enforcement officials.

In 2020, after the Mueller investigation collapsed, I reflected on this. nation On the cultural and historical roots of prosecutorial liberalism.

The cult of Mueller was based on the dubious belief that a man who was a Republican and a lifelong member of Washington’s elite would conduct a relentless and thorough investigation against a Republican president. This belief, in turn, was based on an idealization of federal law enforcement, which was seen as incorruptible and strictly loyal to the law. Liberals who joined the Cult of Muller believed as much as conservatives in the cultural myth created by J. Edgar Hoover to justify the FBI in the early 20th century. These myths portray federal law officers as figures of unique value, more reliable defenders of justice than politicians.

Prosecutorial liberalism has failed time and time again, but its grip on elite center-left opinion is only deepening. A large part of Kamala Harris’ political persona is boast She was a tough district attorney in California, so she would be able to stand up to Trump, a major felon.

In fact, not all voters loved Officer Kamala. Many on the left are energized by the police reform movement; I watched her career as a prosecutor. As a basis for distrusting her. Report on working-class people of color in the Bronx who voted for both Donald Trump and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in 2024 documented There was grassroots distrust of Harris’ prosecutorial record.

There are two problems with prosecutorial liberalism. First is the strategy of using the legal system to accomplish political work. Of course, when someone like Trump commits crimes, they should fall within the confines of the law. However, this law itself is insufficient to solve the problem of corrupt politicians’ status among voters. There is long history The percentage of voters who reward politicians who have broken the law, politicians who have been embroiled in scandal, and lovable villains like Marion Barry, the former mayor of Washington, and Edwin Edwards, the former governor of Louisiana.

The names Barry and Edwards highlight the second major problem with prosecutorial liberalism. That is a counterproductive strategy in an era of anti-establishment rage. Barry and Edwards were popular villains precisely because their lawbreaking reinforced their general populist stance. The fact that Barry was targeted as part of the FBI’s crack cocaine captivity program only proved that he was a threat to the establishment, which gave him credibility with working-class voters.

We are living in a time of anti-establishment anger that is now spreading from impoverished areas like Washington, D.C. and Louisiana to the entire United States. Trump’s popularity is due to the fact that he can give voice to anti-establishment anger, even if it is fraudulent. Countering Trump with the unfettered punitiveism of FBI cardboard heroes like Robert Mueller and cop Kamala only serves to legitimize Trump’s own claims to those who oppose him.

President Trump’s corruption and misconduct remain serious issues. But in a second term, liberals must abandon the illusion that there is a popular and legitimate legal system that can hold President Trump accountable. Instead, the focus should be on raising political questions. Democrats need to show that Trump’s corruption is self-serving, that he is just a plutocrat working for himself and his wealthy friends, not a Robin Hood fighting for ordinary people. . .

It is possible, and certainly likely, that Democrats will regain the House majority in 2026. That would give Democrats a chance to engage in political battles they have avoided so far. That means using Congress’s investigative powers to truly investigate President Trump’s abuses of power beyond the Russia-centric issues that are the primary concern of the national security state. A further avenue of attack is the entire spectrum of presidential power and elite immunity. The challenge of controlling the imperial presidency that dominated politics during the era of Richard Nixon urgently needs to be reconsidered. It will not be easy politically to accuse President Trump of corruption, but at least there is hope for finding systemic solutions rather than simply returning to the prosecutorial liberalism that has repeatedly failed.