Trump Guilty On All Counts
Donald Trump made history again on Thursday. Whatever you think about the New York verdict, it is the first time in history that a former president has been convicted of a felony. The Former Guy is going to be popping up in trivia contests for as long as American history is studied. He won’t be forgotten.
Personally, I’m surprised at the verdict. Like many others, I viewed Alvin Bragg’s case against Trump as the weakest of his legal troubles. The case seemed like a novel legal theory and there were legitimate questions about whether Bragg could prove Trump was complicit in a crime, especially one that reached the felony level.
By way of a quick review, to prove that Trump was guilty of a felony, Bragg had to prove two things. First, he had to prove that Trump falsified business records. Second, he had to prove that the falsification included an “intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”
I thought this might be too much to prove, but the jury felt differently. Trump was found guilty on all 34 counts.
It wasn’t just a guilty verdict, it was a clean sweep. Hats off to Alvin Bragg.
Now that the verdict is in, there are more questions than answers. What we know so far is that Trump is not in jail. He will be sentenced on July 11, and it is possible that he won’t be sentenced to jail time then. On the other hand, given his bad behavior during the trial and lack of remorse, who knows?
We also know that he’s still in the presidential race. The Constitution does not exclude convicted felons from the presidency.
He will probably also be able to vote in the upcoming election. Trump is now a Florida resident and as the AP explains, Florida law defers to the prosecuting state penalties for out-of-state felons. Trump was convicted in New York and the Empire State allows felons to vote if they are not incarcerated. So three cheers or jeers for New York’s soft-on-crime laws!
Chances are virtually nil that Republicans will remove Trump from the ticket. They are already circling the wagons and claiming through some strange math that the conviction ensures his victory in November. No, there is no way that Republicans will dump Trump.
We can also be certain that Trump will appeal. If The Former Guy is good at anything, he’s good at drawing out legal battles, although in this case not quite good enough. The appeal won’t be heard before the election though. It’s unlikely that Trump’s other cases will go to trial before the election either (although we will see some Trump-related Supreme Court decisions.)
A question that we don’t know the answer to is how Trump’s conviction will affect the race. The one thing that I know for certain is that it won’t make as much difference as it should.
Trump’s Republican base will not desert him. If they’ve stuck with him this long, a little thing like a felony conviction won’t be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Fed on a steady diet of partisan quackery, Republicans will be certain that a) the fix was in and b) that Joe Biden is a devil-worshiping socialist pedophile who orchestrated Trump’s persecution and they have to vote Trump to save America.
On the other hand, undecided and independent voters are a different story. There is polling to suggest that a Trump conviction would sway some voters. An April CNN poll and a May Emerson poll both showed that about a quarter of voters might be less inclined to support Trump if he was convicted. More recently, a PBS Newshour/NPR/Marist poll found that 11 percent of independents and even 10 percent of Republicans would be less likely to vote for a convicted Trump. That’s not a lot, but the election is close and it matters.
A great many Republicans will say that Trump’s conviction unfairly influences the presidential election, but consider this: No one forced Republicans to vote for a candidate who was under (four) indictment(s). A great many people begged and warned them not to. My own opinion was it was just as foolish for Republicans to nominate an indicted candidate in 2024 as it was for Democrats to nominate a candidate under federal investigation in 2016. Those who refuse to learn from history are destined to make it.
I wrote recently that I am very concerned about the potential for widespread violence related to this year’s election. I do believe that prosecuting and convicting Trump makes violence more likely, but as I’ve said all along, that’s no excuse not to do it.
We don’t negotiate with terrorists.
My greatest concern at this point is the scenario that Trump will lose the election and then find that his conviction is thrown out or overturned on appeal. That situation would greatly inflame the entire country and such a scenario is not unprecedented.
Back in 2008, Alaska Senator Ted Stevens was convicted of financial crimes just before the election, an election he lost narrowly. After the election, Stevens’ conviction was overturned due to gross prosecutorial misconduct, but by then, the electoral damage had been done.
I’m not saying that Trump’s conviction is on par with the railroading of Ted Stevens, but the (alleged) weakness of the case and the relatively unprecedented legal theory used by Bragg do leave open the possibility of reversals.
And while I’m on that topic, I’ll note that if you’ve heard that Judge Merchan told the jury that they did not have to reach a unanimous verdict, you should know that claim is a lie.
Judge Merchan’s instructions to the jury were that they must reach a unanimous guilty verdict to convict Trump, but that they could disagree on the underlying crime. In other words, if you remember the two-part legal test from the third paragraph, the jury would have to all agree that Trump falsified business documents with intent to commit or conceal a crime, but they could take different views of what that second crime was.
If you’ve come here looking for a prognostication of the future, I don’t know where this will lead. I don’t know if Biden will win or Trump will lose. I don’t know if Trump will go to jail. I don’t know if this is another step towards civil war.
What I do know, however, is that Trump had this coming for a long time. Whatever the future holds, holding Trump accountable was the right thing to do. Following the law and the judicial process were the right things to do. If the verdict gets reversed, that’s part of the process.
I just wish that this case had involved the January 6 insurrection because that was Trump’s greatest crime against America. That day is coming.
In closing, I salute the ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Despite MAGA claims that Trump could not get a fair trial in New York, this jury seemed to take its job seriously. The deliberations took two days. It was not a rush job.
And it could not have been easy to convict a former president. That’s especially true of a president with a cult following that has violent tendencies. These jurors will likely not sleep easily for a long time, if ever.
Voting to convict a former president with a fanatical following takes courage. That’s the kind of courage that I have not seen in the Republican Party since 2016, but it’s what we need to put America on the right track.
On the other hand, undecided and independent voters are a different story. There is polling to suggest that a Trump conviction would sway some voters. An April CNN poll and a May Emerson poll both showed that about a quarter of voters might be less inclined to support Trump if he was convicted. More recently, a PBS Newshour/NPR/Marist poll found that 11 percent of independents and even 10 percent of Republicans would be less likely to vote for a convicted Trump. That’s not a lot, but the election is close and it matters.
This is where the rubber meets the road, innit?
If the undecideds see this as an absolute indictment of Trump, Trump is toast. “We ought to have nominated DeSantis!”, folks could yell. “He’s worse than Trump”, a handful of others could point out.
If the undecideds see this as an indictment of the system? Who knows what might happen?
I’m going to pay attention to the numbers this summer.
Not that polling means anything.Report
“Undecideds”, eh? I wouldn’t have thought there were enough coma patients in America to swing the election; or that they were able to answer poll questions, for that matter.
(Hiya JB!)Report
Hi, Glyph!
I am using “undecideds” in a couple of ways.
1. Buridan’s Ass. (But instead of two desireable things, two vaguely undesirable things.)
2. Undecided between “not voting” and “voting”.
I assume that there are only a handful of people who are ignorantly undecided…
Wait. There are still a bunch of people who, come July, will not have heard that Trump was found guilty. Oh my gosh. Surely not… but we will hear that, won’t we. “Oh, you’re making that up!”, they’ll say. BECAUSE THEY NEVER HEARD ABOUT IT.
I will never be that happy.
Anyway, my assumption is that there are undecideds who are doing the Buridan’s Ass thing as well as people who are undecided when it comes to voting at all.
And I have no idea how this shifts the undecideds.Report
Over at LGM they have coined the term “Ariana Grande voter” for the low information apolitical people who know who Ariana Grande is but can’t name the candidates for President.
And while for us political junkies it seems inconceivable, these people are pretty widespread.
With the death of traditional newspapers and network news, their information diet is TikTok, Twitter, Buzzfeed, and maybe the aggregate feed bundled with most browsers.
When we talk about “undecided” voters we mistakenly think these are people without fixed convictions, or people who have deeply studied the issues and candidates and just can’t seem to make up their minds.
Most of them I think are people with strong opinions and policy preferences but who just follow politics the way I follow sports which is not at all, like seriously I have no idea who won the Superbowl or World Series.
Something like this, that leads with every headline for days is the sort of thing that can break through the din and reach those people. And a conviction isn’t a “he said/she said” thing, it isn’t a “Here’s 5 wonky opinions on inflation rates and why it matters”, a criminal conviction is something that is easily understood.
I don’t know how many votes this by itself will move, but it will be one factor.Report
There are always undecideds somewhere.
IIRC there is some interesting cross-tabs in the polling which persistently gives bide a lead of plus 4 to plus 9 among likely voters/people who voted in 2020 or 2022 but Trump retains a solid lead among registered voters/general population/not sure how to phrase it.
I think a theory here is Paul Campos’ Ariana Grande Theory of Politics. The average voter knows about as much about politics as Paul Campos, a man in his mid-60s with rocker sensibilities knows about Ariana Grande. I.e. they know who the President is and that is about it. Accordingly, everything bad in the United States is blamed on the President. Inflation? It is Joe Biden’s fault? Tje Dobbs decision? Joe Biden was President when it happened, it is his fault. Etc.Report
There are also people threatening to tank “Genocide Joe” over Gaza but I am doubtful they will have a substantive effectReport
I think chances of people looking at this as an indictment of the system are pretty low. That’s of course how Trump will play it, but this is where I think we get into MAGA and conservatives generally failing to take a step back and consider how this sounds to someone without their commitments and personal emotional investments. I believe you’ve called this a failure to have a theory of mind in context of certain strains of progressive activism. This doesn’t mean that Trump can’t win. He absolutely still can. But for this to be viewed as an indictment of the system, at least in a way that matters, you’d have to believe that Joe or Jane Normie in the Phoenix or Milwaukee suburbs are convinced, or ready to be convinced, that Donald Trump personally is the victim of a massive conspiracy. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong, but that seems about as likely to me as those same people deciding it would be a great idea to dismantle the local police department.Report
Not “people”, like, as a set. They won’t.
“Undecideds”. A much, much smaller group.Report
I’m terrible at predicting voters’ reactions in general. As for this situation, I don’t think anyone knows how the electorate will react. Like, if everyone guesses, some will be right and more will pretend they’re right, but the good guesses won’t be based on better insight.Report
You’re being a killjoy. This is the perfect opportunity for us all to make the wildest prognostications we can come up with then try to weasel out of them later.Report
Weaseling out of things is important. It’s what separates us from the animals – except the weasel.Report
Heh, those early Homerisms are still a fountain of wisdom.Report
So lovely to have you commenting a bit Glyph. Makes me all misty eyed.Report
The preponderance of probability seems to be a toss up, in my mind, between a mild boost to Biden and no effect with a major boost to Biden being a distant third and it being varying degrees of benefit to Trump as rounding error probability fourth and fifth tier outcomes.Report
Yeah, I certainly don’t have the finger on the pulse of, of, well, anything.
But I think back on Trump’s claim that he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and not lose any votes and I always thought he’d lose some votes. Maybe not all the votes, but some.
Now as I ponder whether he could do misdemeanor accounting fraud in connection with another unprosecuted felony on 5th avenue and not lose any votes? Well, maybe.Report
I’ll start by noting it is a very sad day that a former President of the United States now stands a convicted felon. Sort of take the wind out of the American exceptionalism argument.
Next, we turn to the GOP. This is the absolute last off ramp for conservatives to take back the GOP if they really want to. After this, if he remains the head of the party, they will deserve every crime syndicate analogy lobbed at them.
Finally the election – of the 10% or so of voters whom NPR termed “Double Doubters” this morning, a trump conviction begins to weigh the scale in one direction. Once he is sentenced it may tilt more. Unfortunately this case doesn’t really address his economic or democratic threats, but it may give people not paying attention to those issues a reason to walk. Of course, it would help if the media had accurately described this case as something other then a hush money case.
This also highlights however that Democrats have to bring their A+ game to the campaign trail right through election day. Since we won’t have federal convictions by then, they need to hammer a lot of other drums.Report
Does he get to be free while he’s appealing this? If not then the convention will need to be scheduled around him being in jail. If so, then his plan is unchanged. Get elected and dismantle the rule of law.
Mechanically I’m not sure the GOP can get rid of him at this point.
That’s fine, he’ll run and lose badly and deserve to.Report
MY understanding is he remains free until sentencing on the bond he initially posted. Beyond that I have no idea.Report
Trump didn’t even have to post bail, and he’s been released on his own recognizance ahead of sentencing.
It’s not like he’s a flight risk. More’s the pity.Report
Damn lib’rul judges. Probably took Soros money to boot.Report
Given that he is under 24/7 Secret Service protection, I’m not sure how he could fly . . .Report
I’m not deeply familiar with the GOP’s internal election methods. I do know they have no form of “superdelegates” so what would have to happen would be something akin to faithless elector behavior on the part of the delegates Trump has earned via winning all of his primaries. That’s highly unlikely considering that those delegates, themselves, are Trumpists- moreover if they did defect then the outcome would be something that could be litigated and it would, assuredly, sunder the Republican Party for, at least, this election and could lead to a wipe out. So in legal and practical terms I don’t see how the Republicans would be willing or able to get rid of Trump unless he voluntarily bows out.
I do think, though, this may influence Trumps’ Veep choice in that he’ll, more than ever, want a highly loyal and not enormously strong (as a free standing politician) candidate to minimize the odds that anyone tries to get rid of him.Report
Not sure on NY but where I am licensed you can ask for a stay of execution of a sentence during the appeal. Up to the trial judge whether to grant it.Report
This trail did something I thought I would never do again. First, actively root for Trump to win the election (not just resign myself to the better of two terrible choices). Second, give money to his campaign again (did in 2016, didn’t in 2020, now back to giving, sigh).
This level Lawfair against an single person reminds me of the sham trails in China and Iran. When did the US fall so low?Report
It is very hard of me to conceive how this is bad or a wash for Joe Biden/the Democrats. Trump has been labeled a convicted felon and now his rants and raves have not been kept to Truth Social. The GOP is beclowning itself too in condemning the verdict and the process.Report
Yeah, while I’m sure this will provide a bit of a lift to Trump on the Right out of anger at the idea that the law might bind a member of the in-group, everything else would seem to push the other way.
I’m going to srake out the following bold contrarian stance: “This major party nominee was just convicted of a bunch of felonies for trying to cover up a really sleazy affair,” is not a good story for that nominee or that party.
Will it sway diehards of either the partisan GOP or Trumpist variety? Nyah.
But it makes it hard for the GOP and the Trump campaign to talk about things that it is helpful for them to talk about while providing a stellar excuse for Democrats and the Biden campaign to not talk about things they don’t want to talk about.
It also puts a lot of pressure on a candidate who is not particularly known for being disciplined and staying on message at the best of times. He’ll be (even more) seething and vengeful and there will be more focus on that then there was before.Report
One of the next steps is supposed to be an investigation by the probation department, including an interview with Trump. That department will make a sentence recommendation to the judge. I would pay to watch that interview.Report
NY Magazine has an article out that is somewhat critical of the trial, for some reason: Prosecutors Got Trump — But They Contorted the Law.
The whole article criticizes all sorts of stuff.
Makes you wonder about her secret motivations.Report
Makes you wonder about her secret motivations.
Elie Honig is a dude, and I don’t see any reason to believe he has secret motivations beyond, perhaps, the underlying need that professional commentators have to drive engagement through takes that are, well, not lukewarm. In particular, I don’t think the guy who wrote a book trashing Bill Barr for his partisan shenanigans at the Justice Department is a MAGA hack or something.
But does that mean his argument is persuasive? Well, uh, no. For all that one might assume he’s going for some kind of exciting take, the whole piece does little to deviate from the broader “Alvin Bragg is being too mean to Trump” genre.[1]
The broader genre is rooted in the idea that because charges are a novel application of the law, they must be somehow unjust or unprincipled, and this piece, like so many others, really fails to explain why this is so. I generally believe it isn’t, because:
1. Trump was doing something that is actually obviously illegal — falsifying business records. This is at least a misdemeanor, and while you can say many things about misdemeanors, they tautologically not legal. And while it’s not quite a tautology, I don’t think the fact that falsifying business records is surprising. Like, yeah, you shouldn’t be doing that and the state has an obvious interest in stopping you from doing that.
2. The business records were falsified as part of an egregiously sleazy and corrupt scheme to aide Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, and one which got a ton of public attention. It’s not like Trump is being charged in relation to innocuous behavior here.
3. It looks like the argument that this was done to break other laws is, well, correct and well-founded in the evidence presented.
Has anybody been charged like this before? Probably not, but it could also be that no one has really given a DA before thius cause to charge them like this by engaging in this particular sort of illegal and corrupt conduct. Without some additional argument about how the charges go beyond unusual to being unjust, I really don’t see the issue.
[1] There’s one piece in there about how long it took the prosecution to specify which NY state election laws Trump might have broken that could have merit, but seems to vitiate Honig’s objection to basing felony charges on Trump’s intent to violate Federal election law.Report
Republicans join Trump’s attacks on justice system and campaign of vengeance after guilty verdict
WASHINGTON (AP) — Embracing Donald Trump’s strategy of blaming the U.S. justice system after his historic guilty verdict, Republicans in Congress are fervently enlisting themselves in his campaign of vengeance and political retribution as the GOP runs to reclaim the White House.
Almost no Republican official has stood up to suggest Trump should not be the party’s presidential candidate for the November election — in fact, some have sought to hasten his nomination. Few others dared to defend the legitimacy of the New York state court that heard the hush money case or the 12 jurors who unanimously rendered their verdict.
And those Republicans who expressed doubts about Trump’s innocence or political viability, including his former hawkish national security adviser John Bolton or top-tier Senate candidate Larry Hogan of Maryland, were instantly bullied by the former president’s enforcers and told to “leave the party.”
https://apnews.com/article/trump-guilty-republicans-vengeance-a05db7fa2512a62afe035992f2baaf16
Trump could die tomorrow and the cancerous tumor on our republic would still need to be dealt with.Report