A conviction does not end the threat posed by Donald Trump

Twelve jurors in a modest courtroom in downtown New York have sent a historic message: no one in America, not even a former president, is above the law. By finding Donald Trump guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, they have demonstrated that part of the US legal system can operate as it should, despite all the strains being placed upon it.

Americans should take heed. Some wavering voters may be swayed against the presumptive Republican candidate. Yet since the constitution does not bar a convicted felon from running for president, the verdict does not remove the grave threat Trump poses to the American republic. And other parts of the legal system seem sadly less willing to hold the former president to account.

The New York court displayed an impartial judicial process functioning correctly. The judge acted even-handedly. Jurors took care and, though the case applied an unusual legal theory, delivered a unanimous verdict after only a few hours’ deliberation.

All the more regrettable, then, that this case — the least politically salient of the four against the ex-president — may be the only one to come to a verdict before November’s election. The other three pertain to aspects of Trump’s conduct that lay bare even more starkly his unfitness to return to the White House — above all, the charge that he attempted to overturn the 2020 election. Yet the Supreme Court is delaying trial on this charge, by dragging its feet over a ruling on Trump’s absurd claim that he should be immune from prosecution for acts committed in office.

There can be no more momentous legal hearing than whether a presidential candidate tried to reverse a previous poll that he lost. It would be a travesty of America’s broader constitutional system if a case so germane to the decision facing voters were not heard before November. Many Americans are still unaware of all the details of Trump’s role in the January 6 insurrection. Having this played out in court, and deliberated on by another jury of his peers, would surely have a far greater impact on public opinion than what took place in New York in recent weeks.

By agreeing to hear Trump’s appeal on his immunity claim — already thrown out by a Washington DC appeals court — on a protracted timetable, the conservative-dominated Supreme Court is serving the interests of the candidate. The refusal of justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas to recuse themselves despite evidence that their spouses support the “stolen election” theory is another stain on the system.

If senior members of the judiciary are not prepared to do what they should, it is all the more important for wealthy Americans, from Wall Street to Silicon Valley, to use their financial clout responsibly, and think hard about the man many are backing. Billionaire financiers such as Stephen Schwarzman and Bill Ackman, who had partially turned away, appear to be swinging back behind Trump; some technology leaders are trying to convince Elon Musk, the Tesla owner, to endorse the former president. A myopic focus on short-term gains under a supposedly more business-friendly Trump undermines the institutions and values of democracy and the law that enabled their wealth, and broader US prosperity.

That a state court has upheld the rule of law while an increasingly polarised federal bench is failing to do so echoes the aftermath of the 2020 election. It was largely local judges, election officials and lawyers, not the federal government, who served as the bulwark against Trump’s attempts to skew the result. The toxic divisions at the heart of America’s system have eroded democratic norms at the highest levels. It will be up to voters in November to begin turning back the tide.

​Letter in response to this editorial comment:

​Trump con­vic­tion leader ‘seems a little over the top’  /   From Michael Duff, East Hamp­ton, NY, US