Former President Donald Trump's conviction on 34 felony counts related to hush money payments does not indicate that America's judicial system is broken. His trial and the charges brought against him do not highlight a "weaponized" or "rigged" judicial system.
In fact, issues surrounding the judge and the prosecution, as well as Donald Trump's rights before and during the trial and after his conviction, indicate that the system is working as intended.
That's why claims by Trump and his supporters that the verdict is a "sham," a "hoax," and a "witch hunt," and that the justice system is broken and requires a radical overhaul not only rings hollow but is also short-sighted and dangerous.
It's too easy to trash the entire system when the results on a specific issue or court case don't fall your way. It's important to remember that Donald Trump's recent 34 felony convictions represent just the latest guilty verdict against the former president. Earlier in 2024, the Trump Organization, the company bearing Donald Trump's name, was found guilty in a New York civil trial and ordered to pay $355 million for lying about its wealth.
Trump supporters frequently use the word "unprecedented" when discussing the latest case. How many other times during Donald Trump's tenure in office—and after—has this word been used to describe a statement or action associated with him—for something that's never happened before?
Donald Trump and his acolytes mistakenly link the former president's judicial trials and tribulations with political persecution. Both have occurred but are not linked.
On the political front, ample evidence highlights the persecution claims. These include Hillary Clinton's now debunked Steele Dossier, the campaign-funded opposition research document; allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election detailed in the Mueller Report; accusations of Russian collusion by House Democrats; 51 former intelligence agency heads saying that Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation—released so Joe Biden could use in as cover in a presidential debate against Donald Trump.
But politics and the judiciary are two different creatures. Politics is blood sport. No points exist for second place—particularly for two candidates vying for the world's most powerful office.
America's judicial system has been and hopefully will remain on a higher pedestal. While not without its flaws, our judicial system is still the foundation of our democracy that separates us from tin-pot dictatorships.
The Founding Fathers created the judiciary as a third, co-equal branch of government precisely for this purpose—so it would be largely immune from politics. Every American is innocent until proven guilty. Every American is entitled to his or her day in court, to be tried by a jury of his or her peers. The guilty can appeal a decision they perceive to be unjust.
In Donald Trump's most recent felony cases, claims that Judge Juan Manuel Merchan is a partisan Democrat whose daughter works for "the Party" and profited off the Trump trial make for salacious headlines. Several Judge Merchan rulings and his jury instructions raised eyebrows. Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, pledged to "get" Trump if elected. Matthew Colangelo, a former high-ranking Justice Department official, left his U.S. attorney job and was hired by Bragg to prosecute Trump. Politically, it doesn't paint a pretty picture. However, the prosecution still had to convince 12 jurors to vote unanimously that Donald Trump was guilty—no easy feat.
Because of his status as a presidential candidate, Donald Trump pressed his advantages—primarily using the bully pulpit before, during, and after the trial. He complained publicly about the judge, the prosecution, and the jury—all issues that will provide ample opportunity for the former president and his legal team to appeal. That's part of the checks and balances the Founders built into the Constitution.
The danger of Trump supporters and talking heads alleging that the system is stacked against Donald Trump and of progressives saying that "he got what he deserved" is that they intentionally or inadvertently make the decision partisan and broadcast this perspective to the voting public.
Disagreeing with decisions by elected officials and the courts is part of being an American. The First Amendment acknowledges our right to complain, "the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Perspective is warranted. We don't have to destroy the judicial system to save it. Safeguarding America's justice system must remain bigger than one person. While the 2024 presidential election is important and the country is evenly divided, America will survive and prosper regardless of who is elected.
The sky is not falling. Democracy is not dead. The judicial system is working as intended.
Matthew Klink is the owner and president of Klink Campaigns, a Los Angeles-based strategic communications and political consulting firm.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
