At this point, the Trump case is different than any other prosecution in history because the defendent is running to win re-election to the top office in the land where he has been given sweeping immunity by a corrupt Supreme Court where he could not only terminate his own prosecution but further abuse his power to exact revenge against those who investigated and prosecuted him. This isn't just a hypothetical. He has PROMISED he would do this.

But there's a huge problem with arguing that. If you're arguing that Trump's case is different than other prosecutions because he's running for President, then you have to treat his case as different than other prosecutions because he's running for President.

The courts have pretty consistently refused to do this. They have not been willing to delay Trump's prosecutions because he's running for President, even though he's asked them to do it. They've rightfully (IMHO) insisted on treating Trump like any other criminal defendant. Every criminal defendant has a life, and interests, and concerns outside of the criminal prosecution - but the court's job is to effectuate the conduct of the case and provide due process of law, and not to get involved with all those other things. So all of the courts have generally refused to treat the case differently just because it involves a candidate for office, and the prosecutors have generally not asked the courts to take into account the election schedule in prosecuting the case. They have correctly taken the position that Trump will be treated like any other defendant.

I dunno - it's really, really dangerous to suggest that prosecutors have a valid interest in effectuating non-judicial effects in their cases. That's especially the case in political cases, and political contests. While the prosecution has a legitimate general interest in communicating that crime is being punished - and that specific crimes are being prosecuted - they do not have a legitimate interest in affecting the outcome of any particular political contest.