Seth Wenig/AP/File

Judge Juan Merchan's nameplate sits on the bench in his Manhattan courtroom, March 12, 2024, in New York. In an order last week, Judge Merchan said former President Donald Trump, convicted in May in a hush money case, won’t be sentenced until after the election.

This was supposed to be the week.

Former President Donald Trump’s legal travails were about to reach their first dramatic conclusion. Fifty days out from a presidential election in which he is again the Republican nominee, Mr. Trump would be sentenced in a Manhattan courtroom. 

Prosecuting a former leader is perhaps the ultimate stress test of a democracy’s justice system. So what would the punishment be? Prison time? A slap on the wrist? 

The answer, as has become the norm in Mr. Trump’s cases, is that America will have to wait. The sentencing is now scheduled for late November, after a decision last week by New York state Judge Juan Merchan. The ruling is symptomatic of the pressures judges are weighing in all four criminal cases against the former and possibly future president.

The cases have tasked courts with an unprecedented challenge: how to accommodate this unique defendant’s unique circumstances while upholding the bedrock expectation that every defendant is treated equally under the law. But they’ve also revealed that the justice system’s foundational principles have some pliability. 

All this matters because of ongoing concerns that Mr. Trump is being – or will be – treated either too harshly or too lightly, and what that could mean for democratic norms and the rule of law.

The judges presiding over the Trump cases have made differing use of that pliability. With little precedent for judges to look to, Mr. Trump has received what some experts view as undue special treatment. Other judges have taken a harder line. The U.S. Supreme Court set a new challenge in July – and further delayed some of the cases going to trial – when it ruled that former presidents are entitled to broad immunity from criminal prosecution related to their presidential acts.

“No other former president of the United States has ever been criminally prosecuted, so he’s unique in that way. But every criminal defendant is unique in some ways,” says David Alan Sklansky, a professor at Stanford Law School.

The real question, he adds, is whether the unique features of the cases “are being taken into account consistent with the idea that the law applies equally to everyone.”

Seth Wenig/AP/File

Judge Juan Merchan poses in his chambers in New York, March 14, 2024. Trying to balance an unusual client in unusual circumstances, Judge Merchan modified Donald Trump's gag order in June, freeing the former president to comment publicly about the hush money criminal trial that led to his felony conviction.

Sentencing delays are not unusual 

Mr. Trump is facing four criminal prosecutions. Two of the cases – a federal prosecution in Washington and a state prosecution in Fulton County, Georgia – concern his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. One federal case in Florida involves his allegedly unlawful retention of classified government documents, and the state case in Manhattan concerns charges of falsifying business records to conceal hush money payments during the 2016 presidential campaign.

In his order last week, Judge Merchan explained why Mr. Trump, convicted in May in the hush money case, won’t be sentenced until just before Thanksgiving. 

It’s not unusual for sentencings to be delayed due to a defendant’s circumstances, and “given the unique facts and circumstances of this case, there is no reason why this Defendant should be treated any differently than any other,” he wrote.

The order, he added, “should dispel any suggestion” that the court is favoring “any political party [or] any candidate.”

Days earlier, in a case in which Mr. Trump is facing federal charges related to his attempts to overturn his 2020 election defeat, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan had taken a different tack. During a procedural hearing in Washington, lawyers for Mr. Trump proposed pausing proceedings until after the election.

“We’re being put in an incredibly unfair position,” one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers said, according to reports. “We’re talking about the presidency of the United States.”

“I’m not talking about the presidency of the United States,” replied Judge Chutkan. “I’m talking about a four-count indictment.”

Different cases may require different handling

While the two judges appear to be handling their respective Trump cases differently, eliciting complaints of bias across the ideological spectrum, they are doing so because the situations are not comparable, some experts say. 

“There’s a really significant difference between the posture of the two cases,” says Mary McCord, a visiting professor at the Georgetown University Law Center.

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts/AP/File

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan is overseeing the case in which Donald Trump faces federal charges related to his attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Mr. Trump's lawyers asked to delay proceedings.

In one, a judge is being asked to sentence a major-party presidential candidate months before an election. With a possible sentence ranging from a fine and probation to four years in prison, any outcome could be seen as affecting votes for or against Mr. Trump.

In the other, a judge is being asked to schedule briefings on a range of pretrial questions, including the extent to which presidential immunity shrinks the government’s case. The parties are essentially arguing about how to schedule those debates. It’s reasonable to assume voters won’t be affected by such disputes.

Judge Merchan’s decision in Manhattan also has precedent. A federal judge in Texas, for example, rescheduled a corruption trial of Texas Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar for March 31, 2025.

But Judge Chutkan’s decision, while lower-profile, is also significant. If she paused proceedings in the District of Columbia because of the “sensitive” timing of the election, says Professor Sklansky, she would create a precedent that “you get a special exemption from being held criminally accountable as long as you’re running for president.”

Is a former U.S. president a unique defendant?

Meanwhile, in another federal prosecution of Mr. Trump, Florida-based U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon – a Trump appointee – has taken a more lenient view of this unique defendant.

Randomly assigned to the case, Judge Cannon dismissed the charges concerning Mr. Trump’s allegedly illegal handling of government documents in July after ruling that Jack Smith, the special prosecutor hired to lead the case, had been appointed unlawfully.

Judge Cannon regularly sided with the former president during two years of pretrial arguments, and she has at times suggested that Mr. Trump merits special treatment.

A prosecution of a former president carries “stigma ... in a league of its own,” she wrote in a 2022 order in the case, inflicting “reputational harm of a decidedly different order of magnitude.”

Jacquelyn Martin/AP/File

Special counsel Jack Smith speaks about an indictment of former President Donald Trump, Aug. 1, 2023, at a Department of Justice office in Washington.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit disagreed. Creating a “special exception” for a former president, the panel wrote in a decision overturning Judge Cannon’s order, “would defy our Nation’s foundational principle that our law applies ‘to all, without regard to numbers, wealth, or rank.’”

In a recent amicus brief in the case, an ethics watchdog and a retired federal judge argue that “a reasonable observer could conclude that [Judge Cannon] has acted in accordance with a conviction that prosecuting a former president ... is an intolerable affront to his dignity.”

For this reason, among others, they believe the 11th Circuit should assign the case to a new judge. Mr. Smith, who is asking the appeals court to revive the case, is not making that argument. Whether she keeps the case or not – assuming the case is revived at all – some experts believe she has been giving Mr. Trump favorable treatment compared with other judges.

“The argument Judge Cannon made was you should get special dispensation not necessarily because you’re running for president but because you’re a former president,” says Professor Sklansky. “I think giving special dispensation either to presidential candidates or to former presidents is inconsistent with the idea that nobody is above the law.”

Pace of criminal cases should be fair to both parties

The situation in Florida is unlikely to be resolved before the election, however. So as Mr. Trump makes his final appeals to voters in the coming months, he will do so free of any impending legal peril. 

In what is expected to be a tight presidential race, spending valuable time on the campaign trail instead of in a courtroom is one benefit for him, as is having less media and public attention on potentially damaging legal proceedings. But this is an example of the justice system working as intended as well. Criminal cases are supposed to proceed at a pace that is fair to both parties, not at a pace that’s convenient for political campaigns.

“Trump has been exceedingly successful in all of these cases in using his legal strategy to delay getting to justice,” says Professor McCord.

“He has that right as a defendant,” she adds. “A team of lawyers filing brief after brief ... can really gum up the works,” she continues. But, “A lot of defendants don’t have [his] resources.”

The Democratic chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee says its initial bipartisan report on the July attempted assassination of Donald Trump will be released soon. But plenty of questions remain as to how the Secret Service failed to prevent the shooter from getting a clear shot at the former president. And the senator has even more questions following another apparent assassination attempt on Mr. Trump this past weekend.

“We need more information. Part of what we’ve found so far leads to further questions. It’s those questions that we need answers to, and those questions are going to require additional interviews, additional documents, for us to get the answers,” Michigan Sen. Gary Peters told reporters at a breakfast hosted by The Christian Science Monitor.

“Any time you have an assassination attempt on a president or any elected official, it’s a direct attack on our democracy,” he added.

Mr. Peters said the committee will also take a close look at the circumstances surrounding the latest apparent assassination attempt on Mr. Trump on Sunday at the former president’s golf course in southern Florida.

“We’ll be briefed on what happened in Florida. Clearly, what happened in Florida is very troubling. To have someone that can be waiting for allegedly 12 hours and not be spotted by Secret Service ... it certainly raises many questions,” Mr. Peters said.

Former President Trump has been blaming Democrats’ rhetoric accusing him of being a threat to democracy for inspiring violence against him, though it’s as yet unclear what the motives were for the gunmen in the two suspected assassination attempts.

Senator Peters conceded that inflammatory rhetoric could be dangerous. But he pointed the finger back at Mr. Trump, warning that the former president’s recent accusations, with no evidence, that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were stealing neighbors’ pets and eating them had led to threats of violence in that town.

“I’d just say, Be careful in the words that you use to express your view, because words have power. We certainly saw words have power with Donald Trump talking about eating cats and dogs. The amount of violence that was threatened in Ohio, in that small little town, that they were forced to close schools and hunker down. That shows you that the words that you use and the stories you tell can be really powerful, and people need to be very careful about that,” he said. 

Fayaz Aziz/Reuters

Supporters of jailed former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan sit atop vehicles as they travel to an Islamabad rally, on a motorway in Taxila, Pakistan, Sept. 8, 2024.

Speculation that Pakistan’s powerful military is paving the way for former Prime Minister Imran Khan to be tried in a military court is stirring panic in the country of 241 million.

A court martial is far from imminent. Mr. Khan has filed a preemptive petition against a possible military trial, which is being heard by the Islamabad High Court, and legal experts are also waiting for Pakistan’s Supreme Court to revisit a 2023 decision that found the military trial of civilians incompatible with the constitution. Either case could present barriers to trying Mr. Khan in a military court. The federal government also weighed in today, telling the High Court that a military trial is not currently under consideration, though the court is demanding a clearer answer by Sept. 24. 

Yet even the possibility of such a trial has sparked broad backlash.

Though it is not uncommon for Pakistani politicians to face prosecution – the last four prime ministers have all served jail time – no prime minister has ever been tried by a military court. If Mr. Khan becomes the first, some experts believe it will lead to violent disorder and sound a death knell for the country’s ailing democracy.

K.M. Chaudary/AP/File

Former Prime Minister Imran Khan gestures during talk with reporters regarding the ongoing legal cases against him at his residence in Lahore, Pakistan, Aug. 3, 2023.

Lawyer Salman Akram Raja, who ran in the general election as an affiliate of Mr. Khan’s political party, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI), notes that military tribunals have over a 99% conviction rate. Trying a civilian leader there “would be a complete travesty of fair play and due process, but it seems that the system here is becoming desperate,” he says, referring to Pakistan’s powerful military establishment and its longstanding feud with Mr. Khan.

A case of collusion?

The crisis began earlier this month, when officials from both the government and the armed forces alluded to the possibility of a military trial for Mr. Khan. Hypothetically, their case would hinge on former director-general of Inter-Services Intelligence, retired Lt. Gen. Faiz Hameed, who was arrested by the military last month and is facing a court martial for “multiple violations” of the Army Act.

The former spymaster, once an aspirant for the position of army chief, has been accused of colluding with Mr. Khan to destabilize the tenure of Gen. Asim Munir, the current head of the Pakistan Army, and of helping to orchestrate the riots of May 9, 2023. The PTI has always maintained that the riots, in which PTI supporters allegedly targeted military installations, were part of a false flag operation conducted to put Mr. Khan behind bars.

According to Mr. Raja, the lawyer, Mr. Khan is likely to be accused of assisting Lieutenant General Hameed in planning a mutiny in the armed forces. “That is what they will accuse him of … being an accessory,” he says. “All of this is manufactured, and it’s meant to take Imran Khan away from the normal civilian courts where he’s won case after case.”

Veteran journalist Hamid Mir concurs: “The main target is not General Faiz,” he says. “The main target is Imran Khan, and they want to convict him through General Faiz.”

But even if there are certain circumstances in which the military can ask to take custody of a civilian suspect, it does not have the power to do so without the approval of the civilian courts.

W.K. Yousufzai/AP/File

Then-army Lt. Gen. Asim Munir – who is now the head of the Pakistani army – attends a ceremony in Islamabad Nov. 1, 2022.

“It’s a very high legal bar and it’s difficult to imagine it would be met here,” says Michael Kugelman, who directs the South Asia Institute at the Wilson Center, noting how Pakistan’s courts have tried to distance themselves from the military in recent months. “We have seen the judiciary assert itself and defy pressure from the establishment, and that suggests the civilian courts would push back against attempts to try him in a military court.”

But that doesn’t mean a military trial is off the cards. A seven-member bench is set to review the Supreme Court’s order against trying civilians in military court – an order that has been provisionally suspended in the past. If those justices choose to reverse the order, as some believe they will, “then legally a military trial becomes possible,” says Mr. Raja.

Backlash from Khan camp

During a rally on the outskirts of Islamabad last week, the chief minister of the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province, Ali Amin Gandapur, alluded to the possibility of a siege on the prison where Mr. Khan is being held.

“If Imran Khan is not released within the next week or two through legal channels, I swear to God we will have him released ourselves,” he told a rally of charged supporters. “I will lead you, I will take the first bullet.” 

His comments – which came after Pakistan’s defense minister said “there is ample evidence” against Mr. Khan which "points toward holding his trial in a military court” – sparked a crackdown by authorities, with security officials arresting several parliamentarians from the PTI. Some of these arrests were made on the premises of the National Assembly, which is illegal under Pakistani law, and represents an unprecedented breach of authority. 

“No security agency or police can arrest any parliamentarian from within the jurisdiction of the speaker of the national assembly,” says Mr. Mir, the journalist.

The unrest comes at a time when the government is on the verge of unlocking a $7 billion financing agreement from the International Monetary Fund, which is expected to approve the loan on Sept. 25. Experts have warned, however, that a protracted period of instability could end up jeopardizing the country’s economic outlook after years of high inflation and disappointing growth. 

“Given the fragility of the economy as the country awaits an IMF bailout, the last thing Pakistan needs is more political turmoil,” says Maleeha Lodhi, who served as Pakistan’s permanent representative to the United Nations from 2015 to 2019. “Both sides need to step back as no one will win if the economic situation worsens.”

Let’s just come out and say it: The Olympic Games in Paris were a success.

Yes, there was a fair amount of local pre-Olympic grumbling, but that is to be expected. This is France, and complaining is practically a national sport. But if you take any average French person aside, away from friends and family (so as not to bring shame on the nation), they may just admit two things: One, they watched the Olympic Games. And two, they had a ton of fun doing so.

Now, as the Olympic cauldron at the Tuileries Gardens goes dim, Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo is making a last-ditch effort to keep the Olympic flame alive. She wants to keep the Olympic rings, which were so perfectly placed just above the arch of the Tour Eiffel for the duration of the Games, mounted there indefinitely.

But while those colorful, interlocking rings perched on the wrought-iron lattice of the tower were, admittedly, a photographer’s dream – especially at sunset with the beach volleyball court splayed out before it – Parisians are shouting, “Sacré bleu!”

The mayor and the Games

More than 42,000 people have signed a petition against keeping the rings up. For many, the problem with the idea is likely its source: Ms. Hidalgo.

Despite being well into her second mandate, she is one of the most unpopular politicians in recent memory. Her attempts to ban cars from the city center and her inability to clean up Paris have given her an approval rating of 19%. Ms. Hidalgo made her decision about the rings unilaterally, without public participation, which has ruffled more than a few feathers.

“The Olympics were a great moment, but it’s over now. It’s time to remove the rings,” says Jerome A., who didn’t want to give his last name because he works in a restaurant across the street from the Eiffel Tower. “So many of Anne Hidalgo’s decisions make no sense to me. What can she possibly gain from this?”

Some say there’s an easy explanation. By profiting from Paris’ Olympics success, Ms. Hidalgo could boost her popularity as she looks ahead to the 2026 municipal elections. In that race she could face her archrival Rachida Dati, the nation’s outgoing culture minister, who also just so happens to be the local mayor of the district surrounding the Eiffel Tower.

But before Ms. Hidalgo can make any attempt to bask in Paris’ Olympic glory, she’ll have to get past a few roadblocks.

Teresa Suarez/Reuters

Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo delivers a speech commemorating the 80th anniversary of the Liberation of Paris, Aug. 25, 2024.

The family of Gustave Eiffel – the man who designed the Eiffel Tower for the 1889 world’s fair – is not having any of this Olympic rings business. In a statement, the family’s organization, the Association of Descendants of Gustave Eiffel, said that keeping the rings in place would go against “the neutrality and meaning acquired over the years by the Eiffel Tower, which has become the symbol of the city of Paris and even all of France across the world.”

Ms. Hidalgo may not be able to keep the Olympic rings on the Eiffel Tower for very long at all. Ms. Dati posted on the social platform X that making any changes to a “protected monument” requires an impact assessment. Heritage experts say she’s absolutely right.

Ms. Hidalgo’s “decision goes against national heritage laws, which prohibit any form of publicity on historical monuments,” says Nathalie Heinich, an author and sociologist on cultural heritage at Paris’ National Center for Scientific Research. “She can try to apply political pressure, but this decision will not be accepted easily. Most likely, nothing will come of it.”

From the looks of things, Ms. Hidalgo is putting all hands on deck. On Aug. 31, she told French media that she had written to President Emmanuel Macron about the rings. Time will tell if Mr. Macron, whose approval ratings have also sunk to the depths of the Paris catacombs, will seek to benefit from the city’s Olympic triumph.

The role of the Eiffel Tower

But perhaps this is all too cynical. The French did, ultimately, overwhelmingly love the Olympics, and they’re allowed to change their minds. Why not mark the occasion for eternity?

After all, the Eiffel Tower itself was never meant to last longer than the 1889 world’s fair. The fact that it has become so beloved is somewhat of a miracle. Two years before it was finished, a group of French artists, writers, and architects wrote an open letter condemning the “odious column of bolted metal” that would “without a doubt dishonor Paris.”

Even some tourists are coming around to the idea of keeping the Olympic rings in place.

“I’d like to see the Eiffel Tower in its pure form,” says Janeen Johnson, an Australian tourist who was having lunch on the banks of the river Seine across from the Eiffel Tower on Monday. “But at the same time, we weren’t here for the Olympics, so it is kind of nice to see them and feel part of that moment.”

Ms. Hidalgo has acknowledged that the steel rings, together weighing 30 tons, are too heavy to stay up as they are and will have to be replaced by a lighter version – if any rings are allowed at all. In the end, it may not matter much, especially to people who have traveled thousands of miles to see the “Iron Lady.”

This reporter’s Midwestern cousin, who visited Paris for the first time this week, pursed her lips in disapproval upon hearing the idea of keeping the rings on the Eiffel Tower any longer. But as she stood under the tower’s sparkling lights last night, she was, like so many before her, utterly enchanted by Paris’ iconic monument – rings or no rings.

“It’s so beautiful,” she said. “Ten times better at night. It exceeded my expectations.”

Reuters

Supporters of Venezuela's opposition protest in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Aug. 17.

On the morning after Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro hastily claimed victory in his bid for reelection – without verified results from the polls – his counterpart in Chile posted on the social platform X: “The Maduro regime must understand that the results it publishes are hard to believe.” That observation, notable for its gentle lack of direct accusation, may have set a tone for ending repression without violence in Venezuela.

Since the July 28 ballot, Mr. Maduro has sought to crush dissent with thousands of arbitrary detentions, arrest warrants for opposition leaders, and the muzzling of social media platforms. Election officials have refused to release the official election results. Tallies obtained by opposition supporters from roughly 80% of polling stations on election night and posted online show Mr. Maduro losing by a 2-to-1 margin.

Yet rather than push Mr. Maduro into a corner, the international community sees honesty as a more effective solution to the crisis than accusation. In a resolution on the Venezuelan crisis adopted Monday, the European Parliament stated that “respecting the will of the Venezuelan people, as expressed in the election, remains the only way for Venezuela to restore democracy.”

Even more punitive diplomatic moves have come with carrots. Although the Biden administration announced new sanctions last week against Mr. Maduro and a short list of sympathetic judges and senior military officers, it has kept alive an offer of amnesty for the president in exchange for ceding power.

For their part, the people of Venezuela have responded to the violent crackdown with prayer vigils and nonviolent protests. Although opposition leaders have been driven underground or into exile, they vow no revenge in seeking a negotiated transition. A truthful account of the election, they say, is not just a prerequisite for dialogue and reconciliation but a solvent for fear as well.

“We are going to go through a process where ... never again will a Venezuelan be afraid to say what they think,” said opposition leader María Corina Machado in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine earlier this month.

Amid the world’s various conflicts, societies and mediators have sought diverse templates for peace – including, for example, arming Ukraine to defend itself against Russian aggression. In Venezuela, the template for progress is telling the truth. That has helped cultivate a more robust civil society than ever before. As Ms. Machado noted, “That starts with speaking the truth.”