Opinion | An Agreement to Prevent Trump from Attempting to Reverse the Election Outcome
Prosecutors ought to propose a suspension of the cases against him in exchange for his honesty regarding a loss in 2024.
TroibNews 
If former President Donald Trump loses the upcoming presidential election, he may find himself grappling with numerous legal challenges, expensive appeals, and possibly even incarceration.
In Georgia, Trump is contending with racketeering charges stemming from his appeal to the secretary of state to "find 11,780 votes" related to the 2020 election. Concurrently, in federal courts in Florida and D.C., he faces allegations of mishandling classified documents and inciting the January 6 attack on the Capitol, respectively. Moreover, in Manhattan, a court is poised to impose a sentence following his conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records tied to the Stormy Daniels hush money scandal. Additionally, Trump is appealing a substantial civil fraud ruling in New York, which levied a nearly half-billion-dollar penalty for allegedly inflating the value of his properties.
The volume of litigation is significant. It's conceivable that Trump might go to great lengths to evade the lengthy courtroom struggles that await him, possibly inciting his supporters to assist in overturning an election loss. The events of January 6, 2021, might merely serve as a precursor to what could unfold in 2025.
However, an alternative scenario could emerge, one in which it benefits Trump personally to be forthright regarding the election outcomes if he faces defeat.
In the aftermath of the election, Trump might strike a significant deal with both state and federal prosecutors that could lead to a deferral or suspension of his criminal charges while also settling the civil fraud case. This arrangement could be viewed as a highly generous global settlement agreement.
For Trump's pending cases, this exceptional arrangement might manifest as a pretrial diversion agreement, a common legal tool that allows defendants to avoid trial through good behavior. In instances where trials have already occurred, he could negotiate for reduced penalties.
In exchange, he would need to commit to being truthful about the election results.
What might motivate Trump to agree to this? A conviction on even one of the serious charges in the federal and Georgia cases could lead to home confinement or imprisonment. Authorities at Rikers Island have even pondered the logistics of housing him and his Secret Service detail, though many legal experts argue that the complexities of protecting a former president in custody pose significant challenges. The financial burden of legal fees will also be considerable; however, given his supporters' readiness to cover these costs, this may be less of a concern.
Additionally, this scenario would allow Trump to showcase his self-described negotiation skills and potentially escape legal repercussions.
Why would prosecutors—who have dedicated extensive time to building these cases and are intent on achieving justice—entertain such a proposal? In criminal prosecutions, there exists the possibility that a defendant could be acquitted in some or all cases. Recent Supreme Court rulings have also strengthened presidential immunity, complicating prosecutions. Moreover, a New York appellate court has raised doubts regarding the magnitude of the financial penalty in the civil fraud case. Upholding Trump's truthfulness about the election results holds immense importance for the democratic process in the United States. It is critical for prosecutors to acknowledge this significance. Every prosecutor swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, and the American public deserves a peaceful transition of power, something that was compromised in 2020, with the potential for similar disruptions in 2024 posing further threats to democratic principles.
Is such a deal improbable? Perhaps. But it is certainly one worth considering.
Prosecutors are likely already contemplating their strategies should Trump lose the election, including acceptable terms for potential plea agreements. Trump's legal team would be remiss not to engage in similar discussions.
Conversations with various prominent criminal defense attorneys about this notion reveal an initial skepticism regarding Trump's ability to maintain the self-discipline needed to adhere to a court-ordered commitment to truthfulness. Yet, for several months, Trump has largely complied with a gag order prohibiting him from publicly discussing witnesses or jurors involved in the Manhattan case after facing contempt charges and fines for multiple violations.
This suggests that, with a sufficiently high stake, Trump has demonstrated the ability to regulate his behavior. The consequences of breaching a pledge to be honest about election results would involve reinstating all pending prosecutions against him. Notably, he did acknowledge in an interview that he lost the 2020 election "by a whisker," even if he later claimed he was being sarcastic.
While a deal of this nature would be unprecedented and intricate, the prospect of collaboration between the Department of Justice and state prosecutors to establish such agreements with defendants isn't entirely foreign.
The cases involving Trump are too varied to fit into the typical global settlement framework seen in corporate criminal cases like the Purdue Pharma OxyContin or Volkswagen emissions scandals. Those instances allowed defendants to defer, reduce, or dismiss charges in return for a formal acknowledgment of wrongdoing.
Pretrial diversion agreements are often employed for individuals, particularly first-time offenders and minors, where the consequences of a permanent record outweigh the offenses. It’s worth noting that the Justice Department prohibits pretrial deferral for crimes involving public trust or national security, likely including election interference and the mishandling of classified documents; however, exceptions can be authorized by the deputy attorney general.
Various forms of agreements exist, such as deferred prosecution, adjudication, and non-prosecution agreements. While most individual agreements remain undisclosed, some have been publicly acknowledged, like Jeffrey Epstein's case where state and federal charges of prostitution and sex trafficking were resolved in 2007 through a non-prosecution agreement. Ultimately, he was charged again in 2019 but died while incarcerated.
For the federal and Georgia cases, an efficient route may involve prosecutors suspending proceedings while a federal judge monitors Trump's adherence to the agreement. Meanwhile, in New York, adjustments to his civil fraud penalties could be negotiated, potentially reducing future sentencing.
There is no legal or constitutional barrier preventing prosecutors from collaborating to present Trump with a unified proposal to temporarily pause litigation in exchange for a pledge of honesty regarding electoral matters.
Should Trump violate this commitment and initiate a new campaign of election denial, the agreement would be nullified, allowing prosecutors to revive the full spectrum of cases against him.
Trump's ongoing erosion of trust in American elections poses a significant threat to democracy. His assertions have become so pervasive that only 12 percent of his supporters acknowledge that President Joe Biden legitimately won the 2020 election. Furthermore, he has refused to commit to respecting the results of the upcoming election this November.
Our justice system insists that Trump must be held accountable for his alleged criminal acts. However, if he chooses to speak truthfully about the election, it would offer far greater value to American democracy. This could potentially provide a pathway to resolving his multitude of legal troubles.
An opportunity for such a deal exists—one that could alleviate not only Trump's courtroom challenges but also his pattern of election denialism.
Emily Johnson contributed to this report for TROIB News
In Georgia, Trump is contending with racketeering charges stemming from his appeal to the secretary of state to "find 11,780 votes" related to the 2020 election. Concurrently, in federal courts in Florida and D.C., he faces allegations of mishandling classified documents and inciting the January 6 attack on the Capitol, respectively. Moreover, in Manhattan, a court is poised to impose a sentence following his conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records tied to the Stormy Daniels hush money scandal. Additionally, Trump is appealing a substantial civil fraud ruling in New York, which levied a nearly half-billion-dollar penalty for allegedly inflating the value of his properties.
The volume of litigation is significant. It's conceivable that Trump might go to great lengths to evade the lengthy courtroom struggles that await him, possibly inciting his supporters to assist in overturning an election loss. The events of January 6, 2021, might merely serve as a precursor to what could unfold in 2025.
However, an alternative scenario could emerge, one in which it benefits Trump personally to be forthright regarding the election outcomes if he faces defeat.
In the aftermath of the election, Trump might strike a significant deal with both state and federal prosecutors that could lead to a deferral or suspension of his criminal charges while also settling the civil fraud case. This arrangement could be viewed as a highly generous global settlement agreement.
For Trump's pending cases, this exceptional arrangement might manifest as a pretrial diversion agreement, a common legal tool that allows defendants to avoid trial through good behavior. In instances where trials have already occurred, he could negotiate for reduced penalties.
In exchange, he would need to commit to being truthful about the election results.
What might motivate Trump to agree to this? A conviction on even one of the serious charges in the federal and Georgia cases could lead to home confinement or imprisonment. Authorities at Rikers Island have even pondered the logistics of housing him and his Secret Service detail, though many legal experts argue that the complexities of protecting a former president in custody pose significant challenges. The financial burden of legal fees will also be considerable; however, given his supporters' readiness to cover these costs, this may be less of a concern.
Additionally, this scenario would allow Trump to showcase his self-described negotiation skills and potentially escape legal repercussions.
Why would prosecutors—who have dedicated extensive time to building these cases and are intent on achieving justice—entertain such a proposal? In criminal prosecutions, there exists the possibility that a defendant could be acquitted in some or all cases. Recent Supreme Court rulings have also strengthened presidential immunity, complicating prosecutions. Moreover, a New York appellate court has raised doubts regarding the magnitude of the financial penalty in the civil fraud case. Upholding Trump's truthfulness about the election results holds immense importance for the democratic process in the United States. It is critical for prosecutors to acknowledge this significance. Every prosecutor swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, and the American public deserves a peaceful transition of power, something that was compromised in 2020, with the potential for similar disruptions in 2024 posing further threats to democratic principles.
Is such a deal improbable? Perhaps. But it is certainly one worth considering.
Prosecutors are likely already contemplating their strategies should Trump lose the election, including acceptable terms for potential plea agreements. Trump's legal team would be remiss not to engage in similar discussions.
Conversations with various prominent criminal defense attorneys about this notion reveal an initial skepticism regarding Trump's ability to maintain the self-discipline needed to adhere to a court-ordered commitment to truthfulness. Yet, for several months, Trump has largely complied with a gag order prohibiting him from publicly discussing witnesses or jurors involved in the Manhattan case after facing contempt charges and fines for multiple violations.
This suggests that, with a sufficiently high stake, Trump has demonstrated the ability to regulate his behavior. The consequences of breaching a pledge to be honest about election results would involve reinstating all pending prosecutions against him. Notably, he did acknowledge in an interview that he lost the 2020 election "by a whisker," even if he later claimed he was being sarcastic.
While a deal of this nature would be unprecedented and intricate, the prospect of collaboration between the Department of Justice and state prosecutors to establish such agreements with defendants isn't entirely foreign.
The cases involving Trump are too varied to fit into the typical global settlement framework seen in corporate criminal cases like the Purdue Pharma OxyContin or Volkswagen emissions scandals. Those instances allowed defendants to defer, reduce, or dismiss charges in return for a formal acknowledgment of wrongdoing.
Pretrial diversion agreements are often employed for individuals, particularly first-time offenders and minors, where the consequences of a permanent record outweigh the offenses. It’s worth noting that the Justice Department prohibits pretrial deferral for crimes involving public trust or national security, likely including election interference and the mishandling of classified documents; however, exceptions can be authorized by the deputy attorney general.
Various forms of agreements exist, such as deferred prosecution, adjudication, and non-prosecution agreements. While most individual agreements remain undisclosed, some have been publicly acknowledged, like Jeffrey Epstein's case where state and federal charges of prostitution and sex trafficking were resolved in 2007 through a non-prosecution agreement. Ultimately, he was charged again in 2019 but died while incarcerated.
For the federal and Georgia cases, an efficient route may involve prosecutors suspending proceedings while a federal judge monitors Trump's adherence to the agreement. Meanwhile, in New York, adjustments to his civil fraud penalties could be negotiated, potentially reducing future sentencing.
There is no legal or constitutional barrier preventing prosecutors from collaborating to present Trump with a unified proposal to temporarily pause litigation in exchange for a pledge of honesty regarding electoral matters.
Should Trump violate this commitment and initiate a new campaign of election denial, the agreement would be nullified, allowing prosecutors to revive the full spectrum of cases against him.
Trump's ongoing erosion of trust in American elections poses a significant threat to democracy. His assertions have become so pervasive that only 12 percent of his supporters acknowledge that President Joe Biden legitimately won the 2020 election. Furthermore, he has refused to commit to respecting the results of the upcoming election this November.
Our justice system insists that Trump must be held accountable for his alleged criminal acts. However, if he chooses to speak truthfully about the election, it would offer far greater value to American democracy. This could potentially provide a pathway to resolving his multitude of legal troubles.
An opportunity for such a deal exists—one that could alleviate not only Trump's courtroom challenges but also his pattern of election denialism.
Emily Johnson contributed to this report for TROIB News
