One of the many troubling consequences of Donald Trump’s re-election is that he will largely avoid accountability for his behavior in his four criminal cases. No other defendant in American history has had the power to dismiss his own prosecution. This is an unprecedented and heartbreaking affront to the principle that no one is above the law.

The potential exception is New York State. In May, a jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts related to falsifying business records to cover hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.

Judge Juan Merchan recently granted the parties’ joint request to halt proceedings in New York while both sides consider what should be done in light of Trump’s re-election. Trump’s lawyers argue that the case must be dismissed altogether to avoid “unconstitutional obstacles to President Trump’s ability to govern.” Even the district attorney’s office said it wanted time to consider how the court should balance the “competing interests” of the jury’s verdict and the needs of the president’s office.

Out of an abundance of caution, Merchan avoided a pre-election conviction that could have swayed the election. But the election result does not change anything in the criminal case. Now that the election is over, sentencing should proceed promptly.

Quinta Jurecic: Goodbye, Jack Smith

Once in office, Trump can drop federal prosecutions against him and his allies. He has threatened to use the Justice Department to prosecute political opponents. He could try to bend the justice system to his will in unprecedented ways. But that doesn’t mean DA or Merchan should “listen ahead” by abandoning the jury’s verdict.

Trump’s lawyers essentially argue that the election wipes the slate clean, that the people have spoken and all criminal matters should be dismissed. His former attorney general William Barr made a similar point in a Fox News interviewwhere he asked prosecutors to drop all pending criminal cases. “The American people have given their verdict on President Trump,” Barr argued. Prosecutors, he said, should “respect the people’s decision and dismiss the cases against President Trump now.”

What nonsense. The election was not a “verdict” on Trump’s criminality. Most voters seem to have concluded that Trump’s criminal cases were not disqualifying — just as sexual assaults, the response to the pandemic, efforts to overturn the last election, and many other things apparently were not disqualifying. That doesn’t mean they didn’t happen or that Trump isn’t legally and morally responsible.

No doubt all the public-official defendants would like to be able to say that winning the next election means that everyone should forget about their alleged crimes. That’s not how our system works. An election is not a jury verdict, and winning an election does not make you any less guilty.

When it comes to Trump, New York’s case may be the rule of law’s last resort. As president, Trump is sure to quickly kill the two pending federal prosecutions — the classified documents case in Florida and the January 6 case in DC. He may not need to do it himself. Special counsel Jack Smith and the Justice Department have already begun discussing how to dispose of the cases, based on the DOJ’s policy that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted.

Even if the current Justice Department were to try to keep the cases alive in some way — such as just agreeing to put them on hold until Trump is out of office in four years — the new Trump Justice Department will simply dismiss them. Trump can pardon his co-defendants and co-conspirators, and he can even try to pardon himself.

Unlike federal cases, Trump cannot unilaterally make state prosecutions disappear. Georgia’s case is currently mired in appeals over whether DA should be disqualified for a conflict of interest. But while the Justice Department’s policy against prosecuting a sitting president is not binding on the states, the reality is that a state will not be allowed to prosecute a sitting president. If prosecutors survive their appeals, the remaining defendants could go to trial within a year or two. But any potential trial of Trump is at least certain to be delayed until he is out of office — and who knows if there will be any desire to pursue the case at that point.

This leaves New York. Before granting the latest extension, Merchan was scheduled to rule on Nov. 12 on Trump’s claim that the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity requires his convictions to be thrown out. This argument is a long shot because almost all of Trump’s relevant conduct in this case occurred before he was president. And while Trump claims some evidence in his trial should have been barred by immunity, those claims are unlikely to derail the convictions. Assuming Merchan denies the motion to recall, sentencing has been set for Nov. 26 — until election results cast doubt on that.

The sentence should continue. Trump’s lawyers’ argument that the entire case should be dismissed based on his re-election is nothing more than a claim that a president (or, in this case, a president-elect) is above the law and can never be held criminally accountable. Because of the election results and the Supreme Court’s immunity decision, that dire statement may often be true, but it need not be in this case.

The defense’s claim that the conviction would unconstitutionally impede “Trump’s ability to govern” is laughable. Trump is not the president yet. He is not responsible for governing anything other than his transition. A sentencing proceeding would involve a few hours in a New York courtroom—probably less time than a round of golf. He could squeeze it.

David A. Graham: The warped logic of Trump’s attacks on judges

The defense may suggest that if Trump were sentenced to prison it would interfere with his duties. It is true that a prison sentence could be problematic. If Merchan were inclined to sentence Trump to prison, he would likely stay the sentence pending appeal. Once Trump was in office, even if the convictions were upheld, the state would likely not be allowed to imprison the sitting president.

In the unlikely event that Merchan tried to imprison Trump immediately, a higher court would no doubt intervene. Federal courts are no more likely to allow a state to imprison the president-elect than they are to allow a state to imprison the president.

But Merchan has sentencing options before locking up the president-elect. He could fine and/or sentence Trump to probation, suspending any probation until Trump is out of office. He could even impose a prison sentence, but similarly could suspend until Trump is no longer president.

At this point, the details of the sentence are less important than the sentencing that takes place. Justice demands that the criminal process be completed. The defendant was found guilty by a jury. The next step, in the usual course, is for the judge to impose a sentence. That will make Donald Trump’s record as a convicted felon official. Even if Trump ends up without a substantial sentence, this is an important legal and historical statement.

Once convicted, Trump’s lawyers can appeal his convictions. This can go on without any involvement from Trump himself. The appeals process will be handled by lawyers and will not interfere with any of his presidential duties. His convictions may be upheld on appeal or overturned, but there is no reason why the ordinary criminal process cannot proceed.

Although the idea was unthinkable to many of us, a criminal can be president of the United States. The people have spoken, as Trump’s lawyers and supporters would say. But just as Trump’s criminal cases did not prevent his re-election, the election should not prevent the usual criminal trial in New York from ending. This sentence must continue.