Trump NY Hush Money Fraud Trial: A Verdict Is In [UPDATE]
[UPDATE: This post originally crossed with Marcy’s when the verdict released. It was pulled back and has been re-released. As Marcy’s post has now gotten unwieldy with +200 comments so far, continue your discussion about the verdict here. See also Marcy’s latest post, Trump Undone by the Truth of His Pecker. /~Rayne]
This thread is dedicated to discussion of the Trump’s NY hush money fraud trial; the court announced shortly after 4:30 p.m. ET Thursday that the jury has reached a verdict.
~ ~ ~
THURSDAY 5:08 P.M. —
The jury found Trump guilty on all 34 counts.
~ ~ ~
Marcy’s got a post up as well, with a much more effective headline: Trump Convicted of Fraud to Cover-up Fucking a Sex Worker
~ ~ ~
House Speaker Mike Johnson just did his bit to undermine the rule of law by minimizing this conviction of Trump’s crime against the state of New York:
Steve Herman @[email protected]
“Today is a shameful day in American history. Democrats cheered as they convicted the leader of the opposing party on ridiculous charges, predicated on the testimony of a disbarred, convicted felon. This was a purely political exercise, not a legal one,” reacts House Speaker Mike Johnson in a statement immediately after the Trump convictions.
The insurrection continues, in other words.
~ ~ ~
Mark your calendar for July 11 as sentencing will be that day.
Keep discussion in this thread on topic. Thanks.
A reminder to all new and existing community members participating in comments:
— We’ve moved to a new minimum standard to support community security over the last year. Usernames should be unique and a minimum of 8 letters.
— We do not require a valid, working email, but you must use the same email address each time you publish a comment here. **Single use disposable email addresses do not meet this standard.**
— If you have been commenting here but have less than 1000 comments published and been participating less than 10 years as of October 2022, you must update your username to match the new standard.
Thank you.
OMG!
Speaker Johnson, a lawyer, prejudged Trump’s case when he paid homage to Trump outside his courtroom. Johnson continues to assault the rule of law by his mischaracterization of this trial – solely because it happened to Donal Trump. Imagine what these creeps will say and do when Trump loses the election.
Johnson negates the rule of law with this ass kissing:
The insurrection continues.
Mikey seems to not understand what it was about. Real charges, real trial, real evidence, real verdict.
And, I hope, a real sentence.
Trump can’t put together a real and coherent sentence.
All of Michael Cohen’s testimony was verified by the prosecution with tangible evidence. And none of it was disproven by the defense. False Witness much, Mikey?
False Witness very much. I don’t think he’s much for following the Commandments (the 10 suggestions, as he probably thinks of them.) Including the 1st.
Speaker Johnson also said that he wanted the SCOTUS to parachute in to save Convict-1. So, which Justices would be talking with the Speaker in secret? Senator Whitehouse is not going to like this at all.
“I think that the Justices on the court—I know many of them personally—I think they are deeply concerned about that, as we are. So I think they’ll set this straight.”
Johnson is making shit up. He’s a lawyer and Speaker of the House: he knows the Supremes have no jurisdiction over this criminal matter until state-level appeals are exhausted. He also knows that there are few options for the Court to intervene even when the time comes.
He’s broadcasting that “he’s there for Trump,” WTF that means, because that’s all his party has now: Donny Trump. But he may be trying to work the ref over the not yet issued presidential immunity decision.
Reply to earlofhuntingdon
June 1, 2024 at 1:54 pm
I have to wonder how much of this “Johnson for Trump” broadcast is a means to push back at GOP arguments by Marjorie Camel Toe Greene and other Trumpists that Johnson is House Speaker only with Democrats’ support.
As I understand it–and I’m no lawyer–the conviction according to NYS law is pretty solid, and free from reversible error up to the NYS Court of Appeals, which is the highest court in NY. But the underlying legal theory, against which bmaz has railed, may be suspect. In paticular, Merchan instructed the jury that they need not agree on what the underlying crimes were (and the prosecution did not need to charge them). If this instruction was according to the law, and I have no reason to believe it was not, the law could end up being appealed to the SCOTUS and found unconstitutional. But this would normally take years. And if they take an emergency appeal to overturn this law while allowing the absolute immunity case to languish I will lose all the faith I had left in them.
Where were Johnson and every MAGAt when Cohen was convicted? Not a word of criticism from any of them. What hypocrisy! Not only that but is Cohen’s 3 year jail term for the same crime going to be a guide for Trump’s sentencing. If anything Trump deserves a longer jail term in comparison. In any case Johnston’s and the MAGAt’s loud repudiation of Trump’s verdict attacks the American legal system, it in fact attacks America.
Its not like Republicans didn’t know Trump was under criminal indictments in several different jurisdictions.
He’s their albatross to carry now (just like he was the whole time he was president).
There’s a reason why #ETTD is an established meme among former Trumpers!
Everything Trump Touches Dies!
It was a jury trial. Twelve chosen from a randomly selected pool of voters, defense counsel having challenges, regular citizens unanimous on all counts. They weighed the evidence. They had no biases else they’d have not made it to the jury. They heard it all and held all the documents.
Citizens doing their civic duty are being smeared by the likes of Johnson. They have better judgment than Johnson, and decided from having heard the entire record. Johnson is blowing smoke over things these twelve people sat through, every minute, every exhibit, every question, every answer – every jury instruction – and Johnson is not saying the jury was ill-instructed.
As to Johnson and Commandments, no other God before Trump? That might go with false witness. I may be wrong, but besides Cohen Wesselberg, [sp?], the accountant, was granted immunity so he’d have to testify, and did. Pecker was granted immunity so he’d have to testify, and did. Cohen was one witness of several. Johnson and cohorts are conveniently in denial. Politicians first, analytical thinkers lower on the list. Beasts of the day’s perceived needs.
“That’s the Way the Cookie Crumbles”
https://youtu.be/K5c3RYMuQt4
“Don’t worry about Melania; we sleep in separate states.”
Here’s Michael Cohen’s “first reaction” on the verdict on Maddow’s program over at MSNBC:
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/see-michael-cohen-s-first-reaction-to-trump-s-historic-guilty-verdict-msnbc-exclusive-211980869837
Followed the link. Discussing Todd Blanch, Cohen said it was only Blanch’s second criminal defense. Has that been noted anywhere else?
I was a little hesitant to admit here that I listened to a TV lawyer, but at the start of the trial one of them did say Blanche previously was a prosecutor, not a defense lawyer.
July 11 happens to be my spouse’s birthday.
My sweet potatoes should be ready, Georgia Jet and Vardaman. Maybe I’ll harvest and bake some in honor of this auspicious occasion.
The continued support of Republican politicians such as Speaker Johnson, et al, for D.T. amazes me without end. Surely, they cannot be so corrupt as to not see the truth of what they are looking at! Or, is it, that T. has discovered, because he has a history of behavior, which supports this supposition of mine, that he has found the various pecadillos of these politicians, revelation of such would cause great embarrassment.
As someone from the South, who has been subjected throughout life to public figures who are sanctimonious religious types, such as Johnson, I have observed that that “purity performance” of public behavior covers up a lot of embarrassing sins. T. is more than able to pay for information which discovers those sins, and, with his past history, is more than able to blackmail.
What is so satisfying about his conviction for covering up a sexual encounter with a porn star is the fact that karma, indeed, has paid him back for what he has probably done to others.
I have always found the “Trump is a master blackmailer” card to be unsatisfying. Even the “Trump is just the middleman to let them know someone is blackmailing them” card doesn’t seem to explain the sheer number of shifts from anti-Trump to pro-Trump. If they’re all in deep….trouble, wouldn’t that info be floated to them BEFORE they made a bunch of statements that made (and continue to make) for great Democrat attack ads.
My suspicion is admittedly more boring. I think that Republicans have realized that a nontrivial percentage of people who once upon a time reluctantly voted Republican, when they voted at all, now enthusiastically vote Trump. And in the many tight elections we see, some by geography others ironically by political calculation, to lose that group to a third party or abstention would be a wipeout across both the legislature and the executive. And that says nothing about the risk of a sufficiently “Trumpier” primary challenger in safe seats to cause unnecessary stress for incumbents.
Mike Johnson doesn’t have to like Trump at all. He doesn’t even have to fear Trump. And his awkward almost forced news conference where he may or may not have been literally parroting Trump’s own messages in violation of the gag order suggest his heart isn’t really in it. And that’s fine. Because he could still easily have the fear of the deplorables who put Trump in office in 2016 and could long-term keep him out of the leadership position and possibly even sabotage his chances in a primary.
Speaker Johnson’s heart is definitely into undermining New York state law, the will of the jury in that state, and also propping up of a lying serial philanderer who shows zero remorse for his behavior. Why that is needs to be explored in depth, not pooped as some sort of one-off.
Oh, I wholeheartedly agree that we have not seen the end of toady, submissive, and subversive behavior from Johnson, Graham, and the whole clown car. My point was merely that Trump does not need to be loved or even feared to generate this reaction. There simply needs to be a strong enough belief, accurate or not, that alienating Trump will cause enough alienated votes to swing the House and Senate (since it will certainly cost them the Presidency). DarkPhoenix lays out succinctly below just one possible avenue a unitary Dem government could pursue, but the truth is that if they are left to hold only one half of the Congress and no presidency, Republicans can enact NONE of that nausea-inducing Project 2025, and their slow slide to electoral irrelevancy continues. I’ve said it before: one of the most fun bets any politics follower could make right now is who will make the “Secret Speech” when TFG goes to the Bigly Realm in the Sky.
I don’t find that a persuasive assessment.
Republicans also desperately need to cling to one of the House, the Senate or the Presidency, because if the Dems take over the House, end up with enough Senate seats to wipe out the filibuster, and hold the Presidency, they’re gong to fix the Not-So-Supreme Court and then pass voting reform, and then the current insane iteration of the Republican Party won’t be able to win elections without either trying to cheat or shifting back towards sanity.
Sounds nice, but I wouldn’t count on it.
Every time the Dems have had such power they squandered it in the name of optics and incremental change.
What you are describing requires bold action, and if there is one thing the dems lack its boldness.
You do realize the Democrats, unlike the GOP, are an actual big tent party representing the rest of the population which isn’t authoritarian and bent on autocracy, right? That it includes a wide range of voters who are wholly socialist to wholly capitalist and every combination between?
Getting to a consensus on action is far more challenging for such a party than it is for an authoritarian-autocratic entity in which only one man thinks he is the solution and everyone must conform and support him.
It’s easy to distinguish folks who’ve never drafted and submitted proposals to local and state Dem party organizations and attempted to garner consensus — they make sweeping generalities about Democrats’ abilities. As if Democrats haven’t had to fight to get approval of one or two self-identifying Democrats in Congress like Joe Lieberman or Joe Manchin before they went independent.
I guess the jury didn’t find Fox legal experts credible.
Good. Much thanks to the jury members for performing their duty well, to the judge for presiding with equanimity during the trial, to the prosecution team for their resolute pursuit of justice, and to everybody else fairly ensuring accountability in this case.
This appears to have been a very attentive jury who took their duty very seriously. I read a piece that the defense team had hoped that one juror would hold out causing a hung jury. They had seen some positive reactions from the juror, and I think this may have been the one who got their news exclusively from Truth Social. Kudos to the government for putting in a great case.
Yes, there was one juror whose body language gave the defense hopes for a hung jury. Apparently, Trump even referred to the person as “my juror.”
Expectations shattered!
Let the rending of garments commence. Failing that, the weeping and gnashing of teeth.
The GOP’s slow but steady creation of these Trumpian ‘articles of faith’ has and will continue to make me think of Arendt and her breakdown of totalitarian propaganda. Those who throw themselves behind Trump get to become a part of this grand heroic narrative. If you don’t have a modicum of social power to your name, you are offered such. If you do, you are offered more. That’s a hell of a high, and making peace with the randomness of the world is infinitely more difficult than simply losing oneself in the power fantasy presented.
This ruling is a glimmer of light in a dark time, but I desperately hope that it doesn’t get chewed up and spat out by the crowds who claim fascism couldn’t happen here, who imo continue to live in a fictional world of their own.
Just wanted to throw out a thought I can’t shake. While we can discuss whether TFG needed to do all this to not alienate voters, I have never been able to let go of some serious anger over Comey trotting up to the mike, I think within 2 weeks of the election, to announce that he needed to go through some laptop to search for emails. I know people who swung on that stunt and to me was certainly close to a knockout punch. That to me was a craptastic move.
And for the juror’s trouble–there is an all-out effort by MAGAts to dox them. Anyone that is identified as a juror is in for it, to the point that their lives, and the lives of their family, are in danger. Not to mention that DA Bragg’s home address has been published on MAGAt sites, the same sites that were used to organize Jan 6.
This is definitely NOT normal
Yesterday, after much hoopla, speculation, after the noise and Spectacle – a jury of 12 average Americans each in their turn came to a sober decision based on facts presented. I understand they voted.
Since his dual-state issue affects his ability to vote, does it add complexity to his gun rights, his (alleged) concealed carry permit, his conditions of release on the other charges, and his retention of business licenses?
Longtime reader. Thank you all (commenters, too) so much for the incredible insight into both the law and the legal profession.
West Side (of Manhattan) Story
I feel guilty
Oh, so guilty,
I feel guilty, and wilty, and frail
I’m so guilty that I can’t believe
I’ll stay out of jail
See the petty con on the microphone
(Which mic and where?)
Who can that old ass really be?
Such a giant butt,
such a wiggly gut,
such a lyin’ nut
such a lame felony.
I feel guilty,
Oh, so guilty,
I make Nixon look lie a great guy
I’m so guilty
I’ll raise millions for each lie I try.
(The Tower, though, is technically on the East Side.)
I claim (bad) artistic liberty.
Oklahoma! OK!
“Any Republican elected official, candidate or party committee siphoning money from President Trump’s donors are no better than Judge Merchan’s daughter. We’re keeping a list, we’ll be checking it twice and we aren’t in the spirit of Christmas.” Trump co-campaign manager Chris LaCivita
I seem to recall Byron Donald’s raising money, ostensibly for Trump, and the fine print said 95% of the money would to to Donalds and only 5% to Trump. Perhaps this is reference that.
In case people haven’t read it already, here are some thoughts from Lawfare’s Wittes on the verdict:
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/thoughts-on-donald-trump-s-conviction
Looks like he got very different take on it that our very own bmaz who called it “garbage”:
“One of the striking things about this case, having taken the time to watch the whole thing, is just how wrong a lot of the criticism that Bragg received for it since he brought it more than a year ago has turned out to be.
We were told by a great many pundits that the case was weak. This was false. The evidence was voluminous. It was powerfully corroborative. It was diverse. The case was quite strong.
We were also told the case was legally flawed. That proposition remains tested only at the district court level. So I’ll reserve final judgment on it until we hear from the various appeals courts that are going to consider Trump’s appeals. That said, don’t bet on the hyper-confident predictions of appellate vindication for Trump, mostly advanced by people who have spent no time with the statutes in question and their histories. Justice Juan Merchan is an experienced judge. He handled this case like a professional. He wasn’t at all the toady for the prosecution that Trump has made him out to be. He was, in fact, very fair. I would actually be surprised to see the case not hold up on appeal.”
If I have to choose between the opinion of Wittes, who sat through the whole trial and heard all the arguments, and bmaz, an anonymous lawyer from Arizona, I think I’ll have to go with Wittes.
Maybe we shouldn’t choose between Wittes and bmaz. Maybe we should just wait to see how it plays out to completion through the appeals process.
Maybe commenters shouldn’t police other commenters’ opinions. Maybe you can stop speaking for others and own your own opinion by omitting the editorial We and using I instead.
There are surely more opinions in this neighborhood than just yours and SelaSela’s, after all.
Apologies to Rayne, SelaSela, Wittes, and bmaz.
The “Reply” line suggests responding to others’ opinions is normal. Not policing. Substantively::
Bibi in the 90s had a parallel situation, facts always unique, an affair during his third marriage, blackmail attempted, Bibi went public – https://www.jta.org/archive/behind-the-headlines-bibi-gate-scandal-rivets-israel-as-new-details-of-affair-surface
No getting cute, no hush money detail, and the marriage and political career both survived. A difference, Bibi did not have to worry over how the Evangelical Christians in his nation might react.
This might or might not relate to the bmaz outlook. He very much likes to speak for himself, I would not go beyond the might or might not observation.
Kennedy also faced allegations, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Exner
The range of people involved in how Trump handled things, the trial witnesses, shows a different Gestalt to the other two.
Trump’s Enquirer contact and efforts, the hush money paid but kept quiet, the “legal services” tax filing business, wholly different – Trump’s way.
Reply to Error Prone
June 1, 2024 2:50 pm
How do you feel about the way President Gary Hart handled the affair he was allegedly having while running for re-election in 1988. Do you recall how he enlisted a catch-and-kill scheme with a friend at a media outlet to buy the silence of his romantic interest through his attorney’s bogus financial maneuverings and subsequent fraudulent business records?
Or how ’bout that President Ted Kennedy whose 1969 Chappaquiddick car accident took the life of passenger Mary Jo Kopechne? Remember how Kennedy engaged catch-and-kill efforts from friends in media and had his attorney pull financial machinations to prevent the story from coming out before he ran in 1980?
Neither Hart nor Kennedy relied on a conspiracy which included business fraud to save their prospects. One left the race and the other just didn’t get the nod.
Neither of those guys and John Edwards as well stood a chance of becoming president because this country hasn’t approved of marital cheating or the appearance of cheating by candidates on the left. Bill Clinton was impeached because he lied about a consensual extramarital blowjob in office; his lying aside, the House wouldn’t have gone after him to begin with if they didn’t think extramarital sex was a facet they could use successfully against him.
All that was US history shaping Trump’s understanding of the electorate. With zero experience as an elected official, up against Hillary Clinton, Trump knew he faced a tough race when he announced in 2015. He needed every bit of margin in red states to ensure he’d win the electoral college if influence operations didn’t swing margin in blue states. That’s why he wouldn’t take the chance on his more recent extramarital hijinks becoming public before the election, not that Melania might not have expected the serial cheater to cheat on her.
As for comment policing: don’t tell other commenters what to think while implying you speak for other commenters. Own your opinion. I don’t want to have to spell that out again.
Bmaz is a licensed attorney in AZ. Like Marcy, but with less formal training, Wittes is a legal journalist. He has a BA from Oberlin. That seems obvious from his writing, focusing, as it does, largely on the political. We’re all anonymous here.
Contra Wittes, the issue is not his reductionist view of whether enough Americans “care” about this verdict. There are many issues, including whether this verdict holds up on appeal; what Trump’s lawless crowd does in response; and whether Americans care enough to do something about it.
Formal education is much less important in this case, especially when it’s not directly relevant to the subject matter. I am impressed with the depth and quality of Marcy’s analysis much more than I care about her PhD in comparative literature. The quality of analysis and track record are what’s important. And while there’s nothing wrong with being anonymous, it limits the reader’s ability to check the track record of a comment writer.
The main question in my mind was whether this case had real merit, or, as some commentators both here and elsewhere say, this case was “garbage”, implying that the DA, judge and jury are all wrong. The appeal courts would have the final say on this question, but for now I defer to people who actually set through the entire trial and have legal knowledge (formal or not) and track record to comment on it.
From where I sit–not in the court but from the papers, TV and Internet like most everyone else, and without a JD degree–the DA acted correctly using the laws he had at his disposal, the judge ruled fairly and instructed according to the laws, and the jury ruled fairly based on the evidence presented. It’s the laws themselves that may be garbage. In my humble, non-lawyerly opinion, if a misdemeanor becomes a felony accompanied by an underlying crime, the underlying crime should be charged, and the prosecution should be required to prove both beyond reasonable doubt. So it’s the laws themselves that may not ultimately survive appeal. But Bragg was perfectly justified in using the laws as written to have the greatest chance of winning. Though, anyone who thinks an elected DA under the Democrat banner has absolutely no political motivation for bringing the case is in serious denial. BTW, a guilty verdict for the misdemeanors only was off the table unless the parties agreed to a waiver of the statute of limitations, which they didn’t.
For me, the guilty on all counts verdict is not so much a joy as a relief. Even a hung jury would have been spun by Trump as total exoneration from the corrupt justice system. A reversal, if it comes, is probably not going to be any time soon.
Final point: say what you will about Bragg, and about the laws under which Trump was convicted. Attacking the justice system, saying it was rigged, as almost the entire GOP has fallen into line doing, just because their guy didn’t get the result he wanted, is contemptible. Like denying the results of a free and fair election, it corrodes faith in our entire system of government.
“the Democrat banner”
This is how the GOP frames it, avoiding the word and name Democratic. -__-
The point is not credentialism, it is the attributes that can lead to intellectual and professional success. A lot of people earn their BA. Not so many a law degree or PhD. When it comes to the law, as in literary research, depth of knowledge and analytical skills are essential.
So the bottom line is, I should listen more to my wife? She got a JD, an MSW, and a PhD, so I guess she wins.
I don’t know if his rationale is the same as bmaz’, but Elie Honig (no fan of Trump¹) hates the case (“this case was an ill-conceived, unjustified mess”) and has specific experience in the SDNY (byline at CAFE: “served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney and co-chief of the organized crime unit at the SDNY”) His analysis here: The Manhattan DA’s Frankenstein Case is a Winner — The Trump Jury Did Its Job, but Deep Problems Persist
For myself. . .I don’t feel like I know enough to have a strong opinion. And I’m a bit worried that opinions on both sides are so heavily swayed by party loyalty that it’s hard to find clear thinking out there. (Have you ever noticed how, for some people, all of the politicians that agree with them are brilliant and everybody on the other side are morons)
¹see Honig’s book Untouchable: How Powerful People Get Away with It (“Few if any people in American history have flouted the law in as many ways, over as many years, in as public a manner as Trump has”)
I am not generally a fan of Elie, but, yes, I agree with him here. As do most of the actual criminal defense attys I know and talk to. I am a lifelong bleeding heart liberal Dem and still think that, and have from the start. And I know it is a very unpopular opinion here at Emptywheel. Oh well….
GOP in the Tanky for Hanky-Panky
A court in NYC
A Pecker gonna be
A fixer cup of tea
A Hope and memory
A rapist fancy free
A Johnson absentee
A cheater wannabe
A porn star potpourri
A mobster attorney
Self-righteous GOP
A felon nominee
Hypocrisy, Hypocrisy, Hypocrisy
Hooray for the AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!
I liked the line “A Johnson absentee” the best. That’s sort of what Stormy Daniels alleged. Is that what you intended? Only Johnson, being the dick he is, did show up eventually, to put in his plug for MAGA.
Yes, glad you noticed. He was also absent from his real job. Plus being a dick is failing to be a real man. So, I meant several things.
” It was still a shit case, and the felony enhancements ridiculous, but sure, cheer this garbage” recent BMAZ, “This type of white collar prosecution is core to what we do at the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office,” Alvin Bragg post trial press conference (poltico)
Take Bragg out of the picture and look at what the Manhattan DA’s office reported in 2016 under Cy Vance:
source: page 5, https://www.manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2016-Annual-Report.pdf
Looks like white collar business fraud is and has been part of Manhattan’s meat-and-potatoes, and it looks like it’s not just misdemeanors but felonies.
Turns out forensic accounting is trump’s achilles heel with this and his $600M (or whatever) civil fraud case.
12 ordinary citizens and a judge did their jobs in a courageous way in the face of pressure and implied threats just like voting officials in many states post 2020 Prez election. I offer them my respect & gratitude.
Excuses and appeals are for losers
That. Everywhere possible across the Trump organization, when forensic accounting is applied I’m sure we’ll see the results of Fred Trump’s lessons on Donald Trump’s business operations.
Fred’s All County Building Supply & Maintenance but realized as Donald’s golf course resorts. Won’t be terribly difficult for Average American to recognize if they ever get a chance to see forensic audits.
Wasn’t Trump’s DoJ specifically prohibited from investigating Trump’s financial crimes? Or was that limited to Mueller?
We the people are the rightful masters of both congresses, and the courts, not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.
–September 16 and 17, 1859 Notes for Speeches at Columbus and Cincinnati
It came down to whether the jury would believe a repentant liar (Cohen) or an unrepentant liar (Trump). They chose the repentant one. Who, incidentally was largely backed up by corroborating witnesses.
A lot has been made of Blanche’s apparent incompetence as a trial lawyer. I suspect a lot of it had to do with his client’s wishes. “I don’t know Stormy Daniels and it never happened” was the hill he chose to die on. And he did.
The lack of a hung jury suggests two things to me:
(1) there was a pretty clear paper trail
(2) the jurors found it easy(ish) to reach some conclusions (and avoid others) about why the paper trail existed
Here’s something that helped my thinking along – an essay from a former ADA in the Manhattan DA’s office: I Was an Attorney at the D.A.’s Office. This Is What the Trump Case Is Really About.
I find David French’s what-if pretty disturbing
It led to a what-if of my own: what if DF’s scenario happens BUT Biden squeaking by because of Trump’s (to-be-overturned) felony conviction allows the more solid, more conventional cases against Trump to move forward to convictions.
When I compare this to Trump winning and finding ways to shut down all of the (more solid) cases against him, the ugly legal scenario where Biden wins may imperil rule of law to some degree, but much less than Trump winning and streamrolling through with Project 2025.
This kinda gets too iffy for me. Here’s a scary (current, non-iffy) data point – The “Free” Press¹ talks to a number of people who say they weren’t going to vote for Trump, but now they feel forced to because of the verdict. My take is that these people have serious flaws in their thought process, but I’m sure that what I think doesn’t matter to them.
¹motto: turning “heterodoxy” into its own orthodoxy (credit to Radley Balko & Shikha Dalmia)
P.S.: I feel like I’m beginning to become habituated to the style of the EW community. When I saw that the predecessor to this discussion had more than 200 comments, I immediately searched for bmaz’ comments, ‘cuz I felt pretty sure I could find the controversy (and comments from other experienced lawyers) swirling around there. I’ve slowly come to think of this as a service that bmaz provides:-)
It’s David French, for Christ’s sake, a fucking right-wing op-ed writer.
I think it’s worth pointing out that while many of the people quoted in that “The Free Press” article voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 (or so they claim), none say they supported Biden in 2020. From their comments, it sounds like they were Trump-curious long before his conviction, whether because of resentment at Covid mitigation measures, obsession with “wokeness,” or whatever. Above all, it’s evident they have completely bought into the right-wing framing of (and lies about) Trump’s presidency and, as you put it, “have serious flaws in their thought process.” In other words, they appear to have been just waiting for an excuse to vote for Trump. My guess, admittedly with no proof, is that most or all of them would have ended up voting for Trump even if Bragg had declined to pursue charges. If they think Trump being convicted on NY state charges by a county prosecutor compels them to vote for Trump to save democracy (disregarding that he attempted a coup and loudly proclaims he’ll prosecute his political opponents), then they’re hopelessly lost.
And I don’t think it’s worth losing sleep over French’s what-if scenario. Regarding the NY case possibly “undermin[ing] faith in our democracy and the rule of law”—would the people for whom it would do this have a different reaction to the more serious federal cases? No matter what act of wrongdoing or even crime Trump has committed, they and Republican politicians have screamed that holding him accountable like an ordinary American is unfair. Any trial, no matter how fair, will always be rigged and poor Donald unfairly treated, blah blah blah. The people saying this are the ones responsible for undermining faith in democracy and the rule of law, not Alvin Bragg and certainly not Joe Biden.