Trump's Law-Breaking: A Case Of Political Privilege?

Former US President Donald Trump has been involved in several criminal cases, including four criminal cases related to his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results. While he has been charged with various crimes, including conspiracy to defraud the US and making false statements, Trump has received no jail time or fines. The Supreme Court's decision to grant Trump immunity for official acts committed while in office has set a precedent that many argue gives future presidents a blank check to break the law. This decision has sparked concerns about presidential accountability and the rule of law, with critics stating that it makes it extraordinarily difficult to hold presidents criminally accountable for their actions.

Immunity for criminal conduct while in office

In July 2024, the US Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump has absolute immunity for a wide range of criminal conduct committed while in office. The ruling grants Trump immunity from prosecution for official acts undertaken during his presidency, including his attempts to use the Justice Department to obstruct the results of the 2020 election. The court's decision has set a precedent for future presidents, suggesting they can escape criminal accountability for corrupt actions.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. United States determined that presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts within their "exclusive sphere of constitutional authority". For official acts that fall outside this inner core but within the "outer perimeter of official responsibility", a president enjoys presumptive immunity. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.

The ruling has been criticised by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which argued that the US Constitution and Supreme Court precedent support the principle that nobody is above the law, not even the president. The ACLU's National Legal Director, David Cole, stated that the Supreme Court's decision "for the first time in history places presidents substantially above the law".

The concept of presidential immunity is not explicitly granted in the US Constitution or federal statute. While the Supreme Court has previously ruled on immunity for civil cases, the Trump v. United States ruling extends this immunity to criminal acts. The decision has been described as a dangerous precedent that grants presidents legal cover to break the law.

Interfering in the 2020 election

In 2023, special counsel Jack Smith indicted former US President Donald Trump for his alleged role in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Trump was accused of defrauding the US by attempting to prevent Congress from certifying Joe Biden's victory and depriving voters of their right to a fair election.

Trump's supporters stormed the US Capitol on 6 January 2021 in an attempt to prevent Congress from certifying the 2020 election results. This came after weeks of false claims by Trump that he had won the election.

Trump has denied any wrongdoing and claimed that the Biden administration is behind the prosecution. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

In January 2025, Trump's lawyers made a last-ditch attempt to block Smith from releasing his final report into two federal criminal cases against the former president. The cases related to Trump's retention of classified documents and his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election results.

The Supreme Court granted Trump immunity for a wide range of criminal conduct committed while in office, setting a precedent that presidents are above the law. This decision gives Trump and future presidents a "blank check" to commit criminal acts without fear of prosecution.

Falsifying business records

The Supreme Court's decision to grant Donald Trump immunity for a wide range of criminal conduct committed while in office has set a precedent that presidents are above the law. This has allowed Trump to escape punishment for his conviction of falsifying business records.

Trump was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, a class E felony. The conviction relates to a scheme to conceal a $130,000 hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels, in order to influence the 2016 presidential election. The payment was made by Trump's then-lawyer, Michael Cohen, to prevent Daniels from speaking out about an alleged affair. Cohen was reimbursed by Trump through a series of monthly checks, disguised as payments for legal services.

Trump has denied any wrongdoing and claimed that the trial is politically motivated. He has pled not guilty to all charges and plans to appeal the conviction.

Despite the conviction, Trump will face no legal penalties due to his status as president-elect. New York Judge Juan Merchan ruled that the only lawful sentence that does not encroach on the office of the president is an unconditional discharge on all 34 counts. This means that Trump will not face fines, prison, or any other punishment, but the conviction will remain on his record.

The decision to grant Trump immunity for his official acts as president has been criticised by legal experts and sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents. It remains to be seen whether Trump will successfully appeal his conviction and avoid any punishment for his actions.

Inciting or aiding an insurrection

On January 6, 2021, thousands of supporters of former US President Donald Trump gathered at a "Save America" rally in Washington, DC, to protest the result of the November 2020 presidential election. The rally culminated in a mob of Trump supporters storming the US Capitol building in a failed attempt to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden's election victory.

Trump was accused of inciting the mob to insurrection and was impeached by the House of Representatives for "incitement of insurrection". However, he was later acquitted by the Senate. Trump's lawyers argued that his use of the word "fight" during his speech at the rally was figurative and accepted in public discourse. They also pointed to his use of the word "peacefully" to show that he never incited the crowd.

Despite the acquittal, Trump's actions and rhetoric leading up to the Capitol riot have had significant legal and political consequences. Trump was the first former US president to be criminally convicted, found guilty of falsifying business records. He has also faced other criminal charges, including conspiracy to defraud the US, obstructing an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. While some of these charges were related to his handling of classified documents and hush-money payments, others directly addressed his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results.

The US Supreme Court's decision to grant Trump immunity for official acts undertaken while in office set a controversial precedent. This ruling significantly impacted the prosecution of Trump for interfering in the 2020 election, and it has raised concerns about presidential accountability and the potential for future presidents to evade criminal liability.

Oath Keepers founder conspiracy

The Supreme Court's decision to grant Trump immunity from prosecution for criminal acts committed while in office has set a dangerous precedent for all future presidents. The court's ruling ensures that Trump and future presidents will know that they can escape criminal accountability for blatantly criminal acts, even if they strike at the heart of democracy. This decision has granted Trump a free pass for his past crimes and has made it extremely difficult to hold any president criminally accountable.

The Oath Keepers founder, Stewart Rhodes, was convicted of seditious conspiracy for a violent plot to overturn Joe Biden's presidential win, handing the Justice Department a major victory in its prosecution of the January 6, 2021, insurrection. Rhodes and four others were found guilty of obstruction of an official proceeding: Congress' certification of Biden's electoral victory. Rhodes was also found guilty of tampering with documents and proceedings.

The trial revealed that Rhodes, shortly after the 2020 election, began to prepare an armed rebellion to stop the transfer of presidential power. Rhodes spent thousands of dollars on weapons and equipment and coordinated with his followers to travel to Washington, D.C., on the date of the certification of the electoral college vote. On January 6, 2021, Rhodes directed his followers to meet him at the Capitol, and they breached the Capitol grounds and building, wearing combat gear and paramilitary clothing.

The conviction of Rhodes and his co-defendants is a significant milestone for the Justice Department and will likely encourage further investigations into those linked to Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Frequently asked questions