Joshua Steinglass: The Prosecutor Who Let Trump Walk Free with an Unconditional Discharge
Joshua Steinglass, the Manhattan prosecutor who successfully convicted Donald Trump in the hush money trial, has sparked a fierce debate. His recommendation of an unconditional discharge for Trump—a man found guilty of 34 felonies—has left many questioning whether justice was served or undermined.
A Career of Contradictions
As a Yale Law School graduate with over 25 years of prosecutorial experience, Steinglass is known for his tough-on-crime reputation. Yet, when faced with the highest-profile case of his career—holding a former president accountable—he chose leniency. Was his decision a calculated move to protect the system, or a capitulation to political pressure?
The Trump Trial: A Hollow Victory?
Steinglass effectively argued that Trump falsified business records to conceal hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, framing it as an attempt to influence the 2016 election. The conviction was a landmark moment, but what followed stunned observers: Steinglass recommended no punishment at all.
An unconditional discharge. No jail time. No fines. No probation. Trump left the courtroom with a guilty verdict but faced no tangible consequences. Steinglass defended his decision as a way to respect the presidency, but critics called it a surrender to power.
The Unconditional Discharge: A Justice Betrayed?
Judge Juan Merchan’s decision to grant the unconditional discharge drew widespread outrage. For many, Steinglass’s recommendation confirmed the belief that the wealthy and powerful are above the law.
Steinglass highlighted Trump’s lack of remorse and his repeated attacks on the judicial system as aggravating factors during the trial. Yet, by sparing Trump any consequences, did Steinglass not validate Trump’s claim that the system is rigged? Was this a pragmatic choice to avoid political fallout, or an abdication of his duty to uphold justice?
A Legacy on the Line
Joshua Steinglass’s actions in the Trump case will define his career—for better or worse. To some, he made a wise decision to avoid a constitutional crisis. To others, he failed the ultimate test of accountability.
One thing is clear: Steinglass’s recommendation sent a troubling message. It signaled that even when a president is convicted of multiple felonies, the system may bend to accommodate their power.
Was this justice served, or a disgraceful failure? The legacy of Joshua Steinglass remains in the balance, but his decision will undoubtedly be remembered as a pivotal moment in the intersection of law and politics.