Trump Convicted of Fraud to Cover-up Fucking a Sex Worker
The first five verdicts were guilty. Updates as they come.
Update: All 34 counts came back guilty.
Update: Sentencing will be July 11, the week before the GOP Convention.
Update: The Biden campaign has issued this statement.
Donald Trump has always mistakenly believed he would never face consequences for breaking the law for his own personal gain. But today’s verdict does not change the fact that the American people face a simple reality. There is still only one way to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office: at the ballot box. Convicted felon or not, Trump will be the Republican nominee for president.
The threat Trump poses to our democracy has never been greater. He is running an increasingly unhinged campaign of revenge and retribution, pledging to be a dictator ‘on day one’ and calling for our Constitution to be ‘terminated’ so he can regain and keep power. A second Trump term means chaos, ripping away Americans’ freedoms and fomenting political violence – and the American people will reject it this November.
Do we know if it was the felony level vs. misdemeanor level of falsifying business records?
All felony counts.
Felony.
According to reporting elsewhere, it was the felony level.
And I may as well throw in a reminder that the courts won’t stop Trump. That needs to happen at the ballot box.
I heard some discussion from the LegalAF podcast, where they stated that:
(1) the prosecution was not able to ask for the jury to have the option of convicting only on the misdemeanor charges, because (even with tolling) SoL for those had expired, and
(2) the defense had the option to waive SoL and ask for misdemeanors to be an option in front of the jury, right up until the closings ended and the jury was charged with their jury instructions.
They opted not to. Trump probably would not have let his lawyers ask for that, but its not clear if they would have wanted to anyways.
Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti, in this NYT opinion article, summarized it like this:
Two huge errors from Trump and his defense team:
– requiring Clifford to provide salacious testimony, rather than stipulate that he did have sexual relations with that woman.
– not agreeing to give the jury the option of misdemeanors.
If it were just the falsifying of records issue, it would have been a misdemeanor, but because the conduct was connected to the attempt to fraudulently influence the election as a special circumstance it became a felony, and the jury understood it.
On to the appeals, I am sure, but I would think 34 felony counts will get jail time. When will Merchan sentence Defendant-1?
July 11. Let’s see how badly he napalms whatever stumps of bridge were left with Merchan in the meantime.
Not necessarily prison time, so don’t start measuring the orange jump suit. If he gets incarceration, it’s more likely to be home confinement.
But Trump’s ten contempt citations won’t lighten his sentence, given that it shows no remorse. In fact, Trump demonstrates utter contempt for this court and the criminal justice system.
I don’t think he’ll say something so bad in the coming weeks that he tips the scales to the extreme end of sentencing, but…
He’s capable of it. He’s genuinely unstable. Maybe only 60-40 odds against him burning down the house?
What would Trump be advised not to do that could negatively impact the future sentencing report and the sentence?
Convict-1’s statement after the verdict won’t make Justice Merchan happy. I thought a golden rule in litigation is ‘never piss off the judge’.
Especially since Merchan will be pronouncing his sentence on 7/11. What’s the range for the felony charge?
All the things he does daily. They are all presumptively probation offenses though, and that there are 34 of them matters not.
Reply to Rugger_9
May 30, 2024 at 7:04 pm
Assuming they are served concurrently, I read somewhere the max sentence for these NY felonies is 4 years. But hard to imagine Merchan will give a max sentence to this first-time offender (ha ha).
[edit: Reuters says “The maximum sentence for falsification of business records is four years imprisonment.” Also says in NY prison time is rare for this kind of thing.]
After some mulling over, it might be that even as a first-time criminal defendant he’ll get some consideration and/or leniency. However, there is a fairly extensive civil record dating back years of Convict-1’s micromanaged Org engaged in fraud on many levels, and as an individual we have the E. Jean Carroll case which is being teased for Round 3. Many of these transgressions (Trump Foundation, the golf course, etc.) were done in New York as well which I would think provides the nexus for Bragg’s team to include these cases in the probation report.
I’m sure the prosecution would use these other verdicts as evidence of an intentional pattern of conduct and ask Justice Merchan to send Convict-1 to a jail cell.
And this is exactly who Donald John Trump is. The physical embodiment of contempt for his fellow human beings. Millions of us, in 2015, tried to warn the world about exactly who he is and we were uniformly told to Sit The Fuck Down and Shut The Fuck Up by every meaningful voice in America.
I fucking hate being vindicated here.
I would think that home confinement would still be hard for Trump. Of course he would be holding rallies on zoom forever. Can Merchan restrict his internet / social media use?
Would SS have to shack up with him?
How would home confinement work, as a sentence, for a defendant whose home is not in the same state as the one he was convicted in? Particularly with his home state likely to be hostile to the verdict? Also, how (if at all) would the fact that he has a legal agreement not to use his current residence as a residence factor in?
Yes!
Guilty on ALL charges
In other words Trump “stole” the 2016 election using 34 illegal criminal means.
Well, no. He cooked the books to conceal that he’d paid Daniels not to go public with her story, the latter of which, although it would no doubt have influenced an unknown number of voters, is not illegal. The fact that he paid Daniels to aid his chances of winning makes that a de facto campaign contribution, which was not reported – and which Cohen went to jail over, but Trump was never charged with. There are also tax implications of the fraudulent books. But he definitely did not steal the election using any illegal means, at least as contained within this collection of “stuff”; if he’d just reported it honestly, it would have been after the election, and this trial wouldn’t have occurred.
Didn’t Cohen do time for (among other things) campaign finance law violation, i.e. that the $160,000 was an unlawful contribution to the Trump campaign? So I think that the hush money payment was indeed in and of itself a crime, but would not have been had the campaign cut the check instead?
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/michael-cohen-pleads-guilty-manhattan-federal-court-eight-counts-including-criminal-tax#:~:text=COHEN%2C%2051%2C%20of%20NEW%20YORK,making%20an%20excessive%20campaign%20contribution.
I was not expecting guilty on all charges. Holy smokes
Good day to be a New Yorker today!
Hey my pop was born in Brooklyn and I was born in upstate. God Bless NYers!
This really makes me proud to be American from NY!!!
This midwesterner is loving on NY, too. Where’s my red heart emoji?
I was expecting it to be all or nothing. All 34 charges are basically the same, just for different transactions.
This is going to be a terrible episode of “Law & Order”.
LOL accurate. Trying to recall if I’ve ever watched a TV police procedural/crime series in which business fraud underpinned the storyline.
And yet this particular set of fraudulent business transactions and documents helped steal an election for POTUS — with the right screenwriter, production team, director, it could be compelling.
Nah, no one would believe such a thing could happen.
We do have Mark Burnett to thank for much of this. Perhaps he might be recruited back to the task.
Fuck Burnett with
a sharp objectan unlubed Auditor of the Month award. I hope that the expiration of NDAs continues to spur The Apprentice production personnel to spill all that’s been hidden from the public about Trump AND Burnett related to that false reality constructed as The Apprentice.Really hope and wish some production personnel saw something when the program was working on Trump Org golf course related programming. Still want the golf courses cracked open badly.
Oh to be a fly on the wall of the limo back to Trump Tower …
That fly would drown in a hurricane of ketchup.
Ha-Va- Nah-Geela!
Ha-Va- Nah-Geela!
Ha-Va- Nah-Geela!
Hey! Hey! Hey!
Sentencing to occur on July 11.
Does sentencing get delayed if there are appeals going on?
Is there a mechanism for the Supreme Court to intervene and delay things?
(IANAL) Probably, but it will take some creativity to get these state felony charges before a federal judge for appeal.
This is a NY state court decision. Trump has an appeal as of right to the S.Ct. – Appellate Division, 1st department, which sits in NYC. He has a discretionary appeal to the Court of Appeals, the state supreme court. I would say the odds of him winning or getting the CA to take his case are low.
Trump will likely try to appeal to federal court, which would be on constitutional grounds. It seems unlikely a federal district court would agree with him. But he has the same avenue for appeal: as of right to the Second Circuit, and a discretionary appeal to the Supremes.
Unless and until he wins a decision that overturns the verdict, Trump remains a convicted felon.
I’ve been corrected that “convicted felon” status starts only after sentencing, not the jury verdict.
The judgment is not reviewable on direct appeal by any federal court other than SCOTUS, and discretionary review there is available only as to federal issues which have first been presented at every level of the state court system.
Corrected again. Per a 2018 SCt case, responding to a split of opinion in the federal circuits, only the SCt has discretionary jurisdiction to hear appeals from the state supreme court (or highest court that can render a final judgment). There are exceptions.
More problematic for Trump, other than delay, is that IF there is a reasonable basis for the decision under state law, the SCt’s rule is that it will not intervene. More irritating, is that any argument he uses with the SCt, he must have first raised at the state level. Plus, taking the case is discretionary.
So, no, odds of Trump appealing are 100% Odds of him winning any appeal are poor.
“I’ve been corrected that “convicted felon” status starts only after sentencing, not the jury verdict.”
Legally speaking? This is probably true. But when it comes to advertising and conversation on the Sunday talk shows… at this point you can probably say ‘convicted felon’ as frequently as you want.
Not a lawyer, but verdict cannot be appealed until sentenced.
Still not a lawyer, but just to follow-on and clarify: a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of the date of sentencing.
https://nycourts.gov/ctapps/coacase.htm
Just speculating, but the quick sentencing date may be to give Trump an early date to appeal.
Sentencing precedes an appeal, and sentencing issues can be raised as part of the appeal. There is no jurisdiction for SCOTUS to hear anything unless and until there is a final judgment or decree rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, at which time Trump can file a petition for writ of certiorari as to federal issues which have been properly preserved in the state court system. 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a). Whether to grant such a petition is discretionary, with the assent of four justices required.
Mr. Herbison is quite correct here. SCOTUS has bigger things Trump related on the horizon, it is hard to see them getting engaged on this.
Thanks, I didn’t see this when I posted above.
MAGA world will explode in gnashing of teeth, but I’d be interested to see what the GOP ‘leadership’ will say or do in the press.
Eric and DJTJ will cry in their beers, and ‘Truth’ Social ought to be (ahem) interesting. I also find it interesting that the one ‘holdout’ juror demanded by MAGA world and Ted Cruz did not materialize. 34 x 12 = 408 unanimous votes to convict.
Will Melania use this as her ticket out? I think it would depend upon how long the sentence is.
Or if the sentence will consist of a large fine + suspended sentence (w/probation).
How about all the GOP voters who were supposedly waiting for a guilty verdict somewhere before bailing in November…?
I think people saying before Trump was convicted they would still support him if he was will be a lot different now that he is actually a convicted criminal. It’s no longer a hypothetical. It’s a reality. It’s shocking. Very few people actually support criminals. I predict Trump will lose more and more support as the reality of these convictions sink in.
If it’s home confinement, she leaves. Separately, the MAGAts are still all-in, as per the comments on Breitbart and RedState.
Most of the MAGA crowd, especially those who comment on Breitbart and RedState, would probably still be all-in even if Trump murdered one of his own supporters live on TV and were convicted of it before election day. Petty matters like fraud, falsifying business records, stolen secret documents, and attempting a coup are unlikely to make a difference. Low-information and/or swing voters, however, could be another matter. And it’s always possible that there are individual Trump supporters here and there who could be convinced.
Entertaining to think of Melania in Trump Tower with Trump on home confinement! She’d take the next plane to Slovenia.
Rugger_9 wrote “MAGA world will explode in gnashing of teeth”.
According to this Wired story, that is happening:
Trump’s Online MAGA Army Calls Guilty Verdict a Declaration of War
Honestly, those deluded MAGAts are the real threat to American democracy. The Kremlin must be rubbing its hands with glee, and I wouldn’t be surprised if their online trolls were currently doing whatever they can to fan right-wing outrage.
Podunk slam dunk!
If I had wings I just sold off
to a rich Saudi prince I would fly
I’d remind him I once was the president
and I need a new alibi
That’s pretty good!
I imagine there is some collective shit being lost somewhere.
The shit loss was already happening before the verdict was announced. Fox News was already ranting, as if it fully anticipated the guilty on all counts outcome.
Looks like we picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue-anonymous Fox spokesperson
What’s the diff between De Niro and Trump?
De Niro only pretends to be a criminal.
This joke kills at Trump rallies.
Only in America can a guy land his Learjet in a small, rural town, get out in a $5K suit, put on a $1.99 trucker hat and the locals say “Look at him! He’s just like us.”
Then send their money to a fraudster!
It was still a shit case, and the felony enhancements ridiculous. But, sure, cheer this garbage.
Election interference should have consequences.
Agreed.
Can’t you be happy for us? Pretty please?
No, I care more about the law than Trump. This is bastardized law.
I see your respect for jury verdicts is selective.
There is the law and then there is justice. IMO this is a bit of both.
If Donald J. Trump is not a jailable criminal, the law is our problem.
Actually it is lawfully empaneled jury convicting a criminal defendant of the crimes he committed. Long live Alvin Bragg.
One can care more about the law than about Trump, yet not believe that this case is bastardized law. Your opinion that it’s bastardized law is shared by some people and not shared by others, with experienced lawyers on both sides.
Marcy, that is a load of crap. Get back to me when you have spent one split second receiving a jury verdict in a criminal case.
Butthurt now!
Butthurt tomorrow!!
BUTTHURT FO’EVAH!!!
Ah bmaz – as always, unaware that he is the very soul of institutional capture.
People who make these complaints never care about the law – they care about the legal profession’s various iterations of “tea spoons go to the left of the soup spoon YOU MONSTER THIS IS HOW THINGS ARE DONE.” Defending the honor of abstractions and the absurdly byzantine rituals of “the law” is cold comfort to those who actually have skin in the game.
One need look no further than the recent example of “Ashley” in Mississippi: the law, in its majestic equality, compels both 13 and 30 year-old rape victims to carry their babies to term.
[Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the SAME USERNAME and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You have published two comments here as “Marci Kiser.” Please let me know if you are changing your username or if you’ve typed a different name in error. /~Rayne]
Will do!
I’m sure Capone felt the same way about getting busted for tax evasion.
In the words of a former moderator on this site: “LOL. Sure, Jan.”
While I’ll agree that this was the weakest case against Trump, there’s no evidence that the jury didn’t take their responsibility seriously, or inappropriately rushed to judgment.
The strongest case against Trump – based on the law and evidence – is the documents case in SDFL. But you seem more than happy to keep justifying Judge Cannon’s ridiculous rulings in that case, so excuse me if I don’t give any credence to your comments.
To be fair to bmaz, I don’t think he has been “justifying Judge Cannon’s ridiculous rulings” for quite a while now.
His initial stance on Cannon could be described as “don’t rush to judgement, lets wait and see” and in retrospect I think it was wise to hold that stance for as long as it was a reasonable stance, but that ship sailed awhile ago.
I disagree. Read his comments on the latest posts about Cannon’s rulings, and he’s clearly trying to normalize her behavior.
As someone who has appeared before numerous federal judges, I believe Cannon is clearly biased, but that’s just my take. But bmaz is pissed at Marcy and Rayne, so if emptywheel posts something pointing out Cannon’s bias, bmaz has to be the contrarian, even if it means supporting Cannon.
Reply to 2Cats2Furious
May 31, 2024 at 12:26 am
Yes, I have read all of them.
Bmaz contrarian? Yes, as always. But Bmaz trying to normalize Cannon’s conduct? I guess I don’t see it.
I do see some comments where he says pissy federal judges doing wacky shit is not that unusual, but that doesn’t sound to me like any attempt to normalize Cannon doing wacky shit. I read it as bmaz saying judges are human beings and some of them do wacky shit and lawyers who appear before them just have to have thick skin and deal with it.
I appreciate bmaz sharing his experience and insights and I don’t want to tar and feather him for not being sufficiently anti-Cannon. I’d rather hear his honest opinions.
For myself (not a lawyer) I think Cannon gives off the clear appearance of being biased and she’s been steering that case into the ditch, while being careful not to give Smith any openings to appeal a ruling. She can’t do that forever, but she may already have caused enough delay to push that trial after November, which is grotesque, but it doesn’t seem like Jack Smith can do much about it.
[edit: but I also appreciate your point of view, and appreciate all the lawyers who take time to post their insights here. I’ve learned a lot from the comments here]
Hear, hear!
[ [ y a w n ] ]
Typical relativist bullshit. He clearly did every single thing he was accused of. It was proven in court with overwhelming documentary and 1st-hand witness accounts. And it was unquestionably in the pursuit of preventing news of his (latest) abhorrent behavior coming to light late in the 2016 election cycle, which — in all likelihood — would have resulted in him losing to HRC.
Save the legal nitpicking, the dude was tried and convicted of real crimes, fair and square.
Legal Soup Nazi has spoken. I ask for 20 minutes of silence in honor and respect for legal Soup Nazi.
This appears to be a standard “if we can’t get mobsters for their actual crimes, we’ll get them for lying on the mandatory paperwork” law, of which there are many on the books.
Is it your position that requiring criminals to essentially confess in mandatory financial disclosures, income tax filings, or other such things, or else be held criminally liable for lying on such forms, is (or should be) unconstitutional?
Should Al Capone not have been sent up for tax evasion, because requiring him to disclose income from bootlegging and racketeering on his tax return, is a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights, and that therefore only lawful income may be taxed?
There are some libertarians who essentially think that (and likewise view know-your-customer and money-laundering laws in the banking/finance industry to be illicit), but it’s not a particularly common opinion, and decades of court precedent says otherwise.
Other than that, there’s nothing unusual about this particular law. Lots of similar laws are on the books in lots of different jurisdictions. And the New York justice system, unlike the federal judiciary, has not been corrupted with numerous FedSoc hacks, whether appointed by the defendant or not.
Part of the problem is that the felony enhancement was based on his committing, or intending to commit, another crime. But he was never charged with campaign finance violations related to Daniels / Clifford. That strikes me as a WTF? You can convict someone of a felony based on his committing / intending to commit a crime he was never charged with? If he’d been convicted of 34 misdemeanors, sure! And I know that “intending to commit or conceal” counts for something too… however, in law, “the ends justify the means” is a downhill toboggan run to authoritarianism, or so it seems to me. Maybe I’m misunderstanding the legal setup, though.
I’m not a lawyer… I read somewhere that NY law doesn’t require the other crime to be also charged. The defendant doesn’t have to be convicted of it, or even actually have succeeded in committing it. There just has to be the conspiracy and the intent to commit the other crime.
from Politico:
This Politifact fact-check also discusses this.
It’s the difference between possession and possession with the intent to deliver. One is usually a misdemeanor, the other a felony. Now take the ounce plus to work at school and there’s another kettle a fish. You may not have delivered but we can infer you were going to at least try.
The felony enhancement is inchoate in nature. The statute that Trump has been found guilty of violating states, “A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”
The object offense need not have been actually committed or concealed. Intent to commit or conceal a future crime will suffice. The object offense can include a crime committed or intended to be committed by someone other than the person accused of falsifying the records.
Thanks for the responses/clarifications; you have materially altered my view of the matter, and it makes sense to me now.
The garbage is Trump. I will cheer the jury’s decision(s).
** content removed – you now have been banned for ignoring moderation requests to comply with the site’s username standard. **
** See previous final warning at https://www.emptywheel.net/2024/01/26/fridays-with-nicole-sandler/#comment-1035856 **
I thought you are practicing in Arizona. Are you an expert on NY State penal law, and specifically 175.10?
WOWWOWWOWWOW!
Just substitute felony for the name Melanie in this song.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crpZUfm58rg
“The Melanie Song”
You could do the same for Weird Al’s song “Melanie”. It’s a gem.
God answered MAGA prayers.
“Nope!” said God.
As a convicted felon Trump will not be able to vote in Florida!
Have wondered if FL’s state law applied only to convictions in that state or if it applied to other states’ convictions as well as federal law.
Just heard on CNN that it’s up to the state in which the voter is registered, but that states usually defer to the state where the offense occurred. NY state allows convicted felons to vote, per the talking heads on CNN.
Politico has an article explaining how this works.
[edit: or see ButteredToast’s post below mine, which I only noticed now.. oops!]
I guess if he is sentenced before the election (which he will be) and the sentence isn’t completed before election day, he won’t be able to vote for himself.
If a Florida voter is convicted in another state, Florida apparently yields to the laws of that other state in regard to the person’s voting rights. Under New York law, it would depend on whether the convicted felon is sentenced to prison and serving time when the election rolls around: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/can-trump-vote-november-convicted-felony-new-york-rcna154286
And for those so inclined to go to read the relevant regulations:
Florida DoS: https://dos.fl.gov/elections/for-voters/voter-registration/constitutional-amendment-4felon-voting-rights/
New York Courts: https://www.nycourts.gov/courthelp/criminal/votingConsequences.shtml
Thank you for that, very helpful.
I was surprised that FL yielded to another state’s laws on such a racist issue – denial of voting rights on conviction of a felony – it’s clung to for over a hundred years. Especially given that FL may have the hardest process to get them back – individual grant from the governor. Wonder if that’s a remnant from Robber Baron days, when northern wealth elites were just beginning to move to Florida.
If I understand it correctly, judges pronounce conviction. A more accurate description would be, Trump was found guilty by a jury of the crimes he was charged with committing.
I believe that Florida voting is governed by the laws of the state where the felony occurred, i.e. NY
So, he can no longer vote
Lol, until formally sentenced Trump is not a “convicted felon” in NY, FL nor anywhere else. And depending on how the appeal proceeds, he may not even be upon sentencing.
This is what I wrote since you’ve chosen to ignore it:
I did not ask if it applied if a defendant successfully appealed. In fact I didn’t even ask, only said I wondered.
Lol.
By the way, unless Merchan steps out of presumptive NY sentencing law, the verdicts are presumptively a probation sentence. But, hey, don’t let that slow your roll either.
Are you sure? Guilty verdicts mean you are convicted. You receive judgement at sentencing. You can’t be sentenced without a conviction. Spent the last half hour trying to find where that line is, but all I found is that if you are found guilty, you are convicted. Please educate us as to the difference
Not until the judge enters the judgement, which comes before sentencing.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, a conviction is an adjudication of a criminal defendant’s guilt; specifically, it is the act or judicial process of finding a criminal defendant guilty of a charged offense.
So yeah, Trump is a convicted felon.
I would honestly be surprised if he actually votes, or ever has…aside from checking the box next to his name once or twice, I have a hard time believing the
dude has ever voted in his life.
Trump votes. He’s been doing it ever since the cameras started showing up for him.
Except when he votes by mail, which he does the “fraudulent” way everyone else does…which is to say: by mail.
…And a good friend of mine had his Brooklyn parking ticket dismissed today too!
See, the system does work!*
*Sometimes. Void where prohibited by prosecutorial dickishness, defense counsel incompetence, extrajudicial actions by law enforcement, intemperate judges, and stacked juries.
Recently, I got a speed-cam ticket dismissed b/c the time stamp on the video didn’t match that on the citation.
My hat is off to Alvin Bragg who brought this case back, Judge Merchan, and the brave citizens of New York who followed through, despite a history of The Trump Organization and friends swatting, doxxing, and threatening general mayhem for those who go against his will. I believe that these people are true blue Americans.
I would hope that almost everyone (outside of the lost-cause MAGA folks) could agree on that.
Even bmaz.
Bragg for US Senate!
Yes, by all means, let’s put yet another ladder climbing shithead in the Senate. But you have clearly identified who and what Alvin Bragg is.
I’ll give him the governorship of New York, simply because Hochul is so awful.
What do you mean “ladder climbing?” So you have a problem with a successful black man from Harlem reaching the US House of Lords based on his accomplishments? Is that position reserved for those who are already on some ladder rung they are born into?
Given the self-selection that necessarily happens to create any group of politicians, it is unavoidable that most will be “ladder climbing” types who hold themselves in high esteem.
People with power prefer types whose psychology is readily understood and hence predictable. Wholly selfless people never get any where much past local councils.
Which system would you prefer rather than the current one?
Ladder climbing was one of your shots at Fani WIllis, too.
Yes. Let him replace the Tobacco Lawyer.
Clearest headline I’ve seen, EW.
It is almost always the cover-up rather than the event that causes trouble.
Howard Baker
July 7, 2024. 7/11/24
7-11 is where Todd Blanche will be practicing now.
What are the odds Todd collects his entire fee?
And, under the radar, Jenna Ellis has just had her Colorado law license suspended for 3 years…
So, lose a criminal trial and go to 7-11? This comment section is ridiculous.
On behalf of the other commenters here, I apologize for the discourse not rising to your “sure, Jan” standards.
+1 @NOrske23
It wasn’t remotely up to the standard of Sure, Jan – and Dean.
Blanche won’t need to go anywhere near a 7-11, FFS. But he won’t be getting a lot more work from Trump.
You left out LOL.
I understand your point, bmaz. I wasn’t following the trial very closely, but from what I gleaned, it seems like Trump insisted on pursuing trial strategy that was (potentially very) against his best interests (e.g., crossing Stormy Daniels for so long when it wasn’t that critical to his defense, etc.). So it’s not only the case that losing a trial shouldn’t necessarily be cause for opprobrium, but this might be especially true in this particular case given how magnificently shitty Trump is as a client.
That said, though, it seems predictable that this post’s comment section would be a bit ridiculous, no? If so, why even bother checking in? Seems an ok time to let the NALs have their Trump-bashing fun
I read it as less of a slam on Todd Blanche, and more of a comment about how Trump rewards his most loyal followers who cease to be useful to him.
In all likelihood, Trump demanded certain tactics from his lawyers that harmed his chances, but he’ll still blame them for the end result.
Would anyone be surprised if he sues Blanche et al at this point?
INJURED? HABBA & BLANCHE CAN HELP. CALL 555-LAW-LOSE TODAY
Hizzah!
If you think you’re happy at the prospect of Trump going to jail, just consider how Melania must feel.
[Welcome back to emptywheel. SECOND REQUEST: Please use the SAME USERNAME and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You commented last as “JACKZ_SR” and the time before that as JackZ in SR.” Please pick a name and stick with it. /~Rayne]
I went to a convention of housing authorities – in our state, every county has one, and so many of them are from small rural counties. Anyway, I spent some time with older woman at the bar – she was smoking her cigarette and drinking her bourbon, telling me how happy she was that her husband was in the hospital because she could do whatever she wanted. I don’t know if that’s how Melania feels, but I would think even a month or two break from that asshole would be akin to a vacation.
I categorize Melania’s behavior as seller’s remorse. She sold her soul to Trump for a coddled life and didn’t anticipate the downside of dealing with him to be as low as it has been. I have not an iota of sympathy for her. Gold diggers dig at their peril.
“Siri, show me failure in human form…”
It’s a disgrace to his office that Mike Johnson, among others, claim the trial and the judge were rigged. Twelve jurors returned 34 counts of guilty after 9 hours of deliberation – that’s the rule of law. Do they believe in it or not?
The answer, by now, should be quite obvious. But only the frothiest of the frothy right will attack the jury. Get ready for a million variations of “the jury was misled by illegal directions and perjured testimony”.
The law they believe in is Wilhoit’s Law: “Conservatism is the belief that there are in-groups, whom the law should protect but not bind, alongside outgroups, whom the law binds but does not protect”.
Trump is, to them, in the in-group, and the liberal jurisdiction of Manhattan, the out-group, so this verdict is on its face, invalid. The State of New York has no rights that Donald Trump, or any other Real American, is bound to respect. This is an intolerable violation of the laws of God and nature, which set clear directions as to who answers to whom.
All the talk about justice and procedure and such, is just commentary. The inmates are being allowed to run the asylum.
That is what red America thinks.
The Harvardian political scientist or the Ohio composer? Enquiring minds and all that.
The former. It was in a discussion on CrookedTimber a few years back.
That’s funny, because the Ohio composer seems to have originated it, not the Ivy League political scientist.
The GOP will follow Mr. Law and Order found guilty with 34 counts and this from the party of family values. He is already fund raising off his guilty verdict.
“Friend: Is this the end of America? I was just convicted in a RIGGED political Witch Hunt trial: I DID NOTHING WRONG! They’ve raided my home, arrested me, took my mugshot, AND NOW THEY’VE JUST CONVICTED ME! But with your support at this moment in history, WE WILL WIN BACK THE WHITE HOUSE AND MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” reads a fundraising email from Trump National Committee JFC.
“My end-of-month fundraising deadline is just DAYS AWAY!” the message added.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4694797-trump-fundraises-off-guilty-verdict/
It always makes me laugh that he is referring to himself when he says “witch hunt.”
He turned me into a newt!
Thanks Ms. Wheeler. I find the statement from the national executive inadequate. I think the executive branch has to bypass the judicial branch and demand an immediate trial on DC charges. Someone is trying to overthrow the constitution and that person and his enablers have to be stopped. Or, to keep it simple, keep up the scare.
Your angst and the reach of the Constitution and the criminal justice system don’t seem to overlap.
True. President Lincoln faced some tough choices in March 1861. Biden and Smith must demand an immediate trial on the DC charges. And it wouldn’t hurt for the US to intervene in every case on Judge Cannon’s docket and get them all removed to another judge. Treat her like every other failed federal employee: she can keep her job, but she shouldn’t get any real work.
The Constitution is not self enforcing.
You’re arguing for a Trumpist view of executive authority. Won’t be much of a Constitution left after that. No thanks.
Not in Biden’s job description. DOJ can do what it needs to do.
I think there’s a very simple way for Biden to handle this. He says, “I think it’s obvious that both Alito and Thomas have been accepting money and favors they should not have accepted. Therefore, this administration will decline to enforce any case law in which one of Alito or Thomas’s benefactors stood to benefit from a particular decision. Note that we are not rewriting the law. As far as we’re concerned these matters can and should be brought before the Supreme Court again once that court has regained it’s honor via the resignations of those who have accepted money and favors, at which point the administration will enforce any new decisions made about the previous important matters.” Or some such.
This welcome news is reverberating here in France (first leg of a trip to Scotland). With all due respect to bmaz’s point of view, ummm, how shall I put it…
f*ck yeah! I’ll defer to principle and the sanctity of the law when SC justices properly recuse themselves in the face of blatant conflict. Conflation? The system is an integral entity as I see it.
The judicial branch is protecting an attempt to end the constitution. Lincoln ignored Roger Taney and President Biden may have to do something similar.
When trump suggested he could ‘suspend’ the constitution, the ‘party of law and order’ and the supreme court should have dropped any support for him. The fact that they haven’t done so is sort of a giveaway that they don’t give a shit about laws in the face of the new Trump order of things. Biden really needs to go in hard on that.
Scotland and France – the Auld Alliance.
Celebrate! Celebrate!
Dance to the verdict!
Is there a reasonable (or unreasonable) path for this to reach the Supreme Court, where it inevitably would be tossed?
No. Trump is more likely to pardon himself, if he resumes his dictatorship.
The Supremes are unlikely to touch this verdict with a ten-Alito pole, though Thomas and Alito probably think holding Trump accountable for anything is an abomination.
Yes, exactly.
This is a New York State trial regarding violations of NY State law, right? If so, there should be no way any appeal goes beyond the New York State Supreme Court, unless there’s some angle about violation of Trump’s federal civil rights during the proceedings or the like that they dredge up so they can engage the Federal court system with that suit.
It’s possible that SCOTUS might decide to interfere, under the ancient legal doctrine of Pedicabo, hoc est quod, but that would be an escalation for even them; and a violation of the usual norm that SCOTUS stays out of state court matters without a colorable allegation of a federal rights violation.
Well, he could pardon himself for federal crimes, but not for state crimes. Sad.
I don’t think he can pardon himself can he? At least it’s debatable? He can drop an appeal though.
[Moderator’s note: this comment and the one at 3:25 you used an underbar and not a dash in your username, triggering moderation. I’ve edited these but please avoid this on future comments. /~Rayne]
If Alito’s wife flies the United States flag upside down while reciting the pledge backwards and walking thrice widdershins around their house, that’s totally fine.
It’s nothing to do with him, he only lives there ;-)
You just articulated the problem I had with Alito’s nomination. He was just a part of an organization — the far-right conservative group Concerned Alumni of Princeton — which was overtly misogynist and racist, he wasn’t a misogynist or racist.
I will never forgive the Democratic senators who voted to approve this guy, failing to see through his bullshit.
Hardly any. This is a conviction under state law. Supreme Court should only get involved after state appeals are over. If Trump is guilty, Supremes could reverse on one of several grounds: 1) procedure was faulty under Constitution (unlikely to have much traction; 2) law itself is unconstitutional (a hard position to argue, but some chance for T there), and; 3) Trump is immune as ex president for things that he did before he even became president. Some members of SCOTUS might bite on this one, but it would be a real stretch.
in response to: EatenByGrues, May 30, 2024 at 7:32 pm
What is “Pedicabo, hoc est quod”??? I’ve tried looking it up but I can’t find any explanation of what it means?
If my early back-alley latin isn’t entirely lost to me, that would be ‘distasteful or not i would sodomize the heck outta that ruling cause i can.’
Fire up your browser and search for the pedantic Latin phrase, which is taken from a scandalous poem, Catullus 16, by first century B.C.E. Roman poet, Catullus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus_16
right, thanks Boris and earl, I didn’t realize it was part of the poem that was coming up in search results… basically it’s “screw you, I’ll fuck with the case both ways” lol how very colourful, didn’t realize Latin could be so dirty! learn something new here everyday!
“Screw you” does not quite capture the explicit earthiness of a poem that has been considered sexually outrageous – including by sexually outrageous Romans – for over two thousand years.
Felonious Trump!!!
Trump should be so proud to have a title that only he can have on this entire planet in all its history: Former US President Convicted of a Crime.
Here’s hoping that doesn’t follow with Former President Convicted of a Crime Re-Elected.
Former POTUS and convicted felon, Donald J. Trump.
For all the MAGAs out there, it’s time for another episode of Click Here to Donate!
And so they apparently have, to the tune of 38 million and counting, according to my friend who’s paying attention. Enough to pay half his lawyers’ tab?
‘Enough to pay half his lawyers’ tab?’
Lol. ;-)
I’m hoping that this is a moment like when Greg Stillson held up a toddler as a human shield in The Dead Zone, and John Smith instantly knew he would be defeated.
I find it a bit uncomfortable to call Ms. Daniels a sex worker. It strikes me as degrading, but maybe that’s my hang-up. When Trump married Melania, she was a nude model. Might she also have qualified as a “sex worker”?
Did marriage to Trump also bring a change of employment? I mean, perhaps she continued to have an exclusive with one client.
That’s the problem with euphemisms such as “sex worker.” They ultimately become the pejoratives they attempted to replace. You see this particularly in the world of education.
Yes, though whether Melania’s sex work was limited to modeling (or otherwise appearing nude, either for pornographic media or in person) or also included more personal things, I’ve no idea.
“Sex worker” is probably the most morally neutral term for a profession that has long been highly stigmatized, and is certainly more polite than most of the other terms for people who exchange sexual favors for money.
There are some euphemisms about (“lady of the evening” instead of “prostitute”, for instance), but the existence and use of such euphemisms also serves to stigmatize the field.
First, it’s your hang up that you perceive “sex worker” as degrading. Some people need to buy sex because they can’t have it otherwise; some other people fulfill that need. It’s that simple. I suggest spending some time examining how you learned sex work was degrading. Our society’s problem is that we don’t uniformly expect sex work to have protections other work has under state and federal regulation; perhaps if we did a better job of regulating it like other work, it wouldn’t have the stigma. What a pity Trump isn’t enlightened enough to pitch that as policy.
Second, Melania was a model; many models are nude but not all are photographed in a way which displays their nudity. If she provided sex as a service she’d be a sex worker and not a model, or a model and a sex worker. I don’t get your conflation because of nudity; that’s another opportunity for introspection and perhaps some research about modeling. What separates these models from sex workers? Merely the degree of transparency in attire?
A woman I know, Kaitlin Bailey, has a podcast, “The Oldest Profession.” It’s great, well-researched, written, produced. My favorite episodes are on the mythical Lilith, Marilyn Monroe, Dee Dee Ramone, and the round-table discussion on Melania Trump as an “old pro.”
Kaitlin uses the term “sex worker” almost exclusively. No shame in the term.
I recommend the podcast.
In fact, you can easily find a video of her on YouTube asking Gloria Steinem at a conference when will Steinem be ready to listen to sex workers when they tell their stories.
But Stormy Daniels was not working as a prostitute. She was just an adult film star.
Go back and re-read this nested thread. Neither commenter EatenByGrues to whom I was replying or myself mentioned Stormy Daniels. We were discussing the term “sex worker” in generalities.
Trump’s amazing ability to defy criminal charges finally comes to an end after 60 years of criming.
Hopefully he will keep comparing himself to Al Capone.
In all seriousness, I hope the judge, prosecutors, and members of the jury have some serious protection for what is going to be coming their ways in the days and weeks ahead.
Yes.
I was just thinking that. The courage of those jurors doesn’t end with the pronouncement of the verdict, and I suspect they have known it all along. I would hope each has a marshal or two adjacent to their residence for the foreseeable future, though I don’t know what the custom might be in NYC.
I just remembered the case was NOT federal, so no US Marshal protection for the jurors. I have grave doubts about any “protection” offered by the NYPD. Prayers for the jurors’ safety might be in order.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdXjm8pZMws
Welp, we’ll see after the next few…
trials that is if cannon gets the jettison she deserves.
“It was still a shit case, and the felony enhancements ridiculous. But, sure, cheer this garbage.”
He is not the first or the last to be convicted by a “shit case”. It’s the judicial system of the state of New York. Shit cases have a long history in NY, they are probably in every state. This shit case carried through to a very quick conviction. The evidence must have been beyond doubt.
I think most people are not cheering as much as they are relived and happy that a shitty, horrible human being was finally convicted, even if by, in your words a shit case. This man at every turn before, during and after his 4 years demonstrates everyday what a horrible human he is. He is a walking talking version of the 7 deadly sins. A veritable one man crime wave. A jury of peers said guilty and nothing can change that fact.
A reminder that this man is our greatest threat to Nation Security and most are treating it like it a normal thing to have happen. The assessment of the damage he has done to National Security is still being evaluated. There should be some urgency to resolve this matter most critical security breach.
Not a shit case. It’s an example of what you do to nail someone who plays at the edges of the law, uses cutouts and fixers, never gives direct orders, etc. Laws are written broadly to cover such people and their actions. Prosecutors most of the time choose not to go that broad, but they do have discretion; they always have, and they always will.
Apparently, Bragg thought so, too. Until he didn’t anymore.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-does-new-yorks-criminal-investigation-of-donald-trump-appear-all-but-over
Overcharged-yes. Trivial, compared to the federal cases-yes. Proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of a jury that reached consensus without difficulty-not a shit case.
Marcy writes the best headlines.
Before the jury deliberated, Merchan noted for them that the crimes under consideration did not necessarily carry a sentence of incarceration. Whether that hints at any particular direction he will take, I don’t know. I’m sure the defense will argue for zero jail time, and it seems to me likely that the prosecution will argue for at least some jail time: 30 days + two years probation and/or public service? Would being President count as public service?
Merchan erred by even addressing any potential sentence. And, yet again, they are presumptively probation sentences, But, sure, listen to clucks on the internet and cable TV. And if Merchan does hand down incarceration, Trump would be perfectly justified in screaming about it.
I agree that a trial judge should not ordinarily mention a potential sentence. It became necessary in this case because Todd Blanche during closing argument improperly entreated the jury not to send Donald Trump to prison. Justice Merchan severely chastised Blanche (outside the presence of the jury) for doing so. A curative instruction was appropriate in light of Blanche’s misconduct.
I never practiced in NY but the standard jury instructions in the two states that I did addressed the possibility of punishment following a verdict (the fact that punishment may follow a conviction may not be considered except insofar as it may encourage you to be careful in your deliberations, or words to that effect).
So how is it Michael Cohen was able to draw jail time for the same offense?
Are Federal laws on this that much different?
Ugh. I fear Trump would use a public service sentence as a tool for campaigning.
I was once arrested for CD protesting police killings in the Mayor’s office. One of my comrades kept track of her time at demonstrations as “public service” after the judge said, “continue your activities.” My pro bono atty got my charges dropped. I was so mad. I had to fire my attorney to file a motion to have my charges reinstated. The DA said they were not interested in prosecuting me. This despite the prosecution stating in court that each defendant (13) deserved the “fullness of a separate trial” when the other attorneys argued for all to be tried in one trial. Not sure Merchan would find campaigning “public service.”
That judgment is why any lawyer would be a fool to represent themselves.
Campaigning would be be in self interest — Trump’s applying for a job. His sentence shouldn’t be a job application.
It will be interesting to see if Trump’s 10 violations of the gag order, and other behavior (lack of remorse, etc.) are taken into account in the sentencing.
My understanding is that Merchan’s comments on sentencing were a response to Blanche’s (impermissible) reference to sentencing in his closing argument. From WaPo:
“To recap, Blanche, in the final minutes of his closing argument, painted former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen as an inveterate liar and told the jury, “You cannot send somebody to prison, you cannot convict somebody-” Before he could finish his thought, prosecutors objected, and New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan sustained the objection.”
And subsequently gave a curative instruction to the jury.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/29/why-trump-lawyers-prison-reference-was-so-outrageous/
Exactly, but bmaz couldn’t resist kicking at Merchan (because of his underlying distaste for the whole case) when the fault was exactly with Trump’s lawyers and not the judge.
I did not kick at anybody. And, no, discussion of any potential sentence is NEVER appropriate. But you would know that if you did this.
A former president trying his hardest to encourage his violent cult into terrorizing an empaneled jury in his trial is NEVER appropriate either, but here we are.
A comment from the future (few days later):
Reading the transcript of 5-28 from page 4581, near the end of his summation, Blanche used the words “you cannot send somebody to prison”, the prosecutor Mr. Steinglass objected and Merchan sustained.
Two pages later, the jury has left for lunch break and Merchan hears arguments about whether a curative instruction is needed. The prosecution asks for it, calling Blanche’s “prison” comment a “blatant and wholly inappropriate effort to cull sympathy for their client”.
Page 4585 and 4586, Merchan decides to give the curative instruction. He also says that Blanche’s “prison” comment was outrageous and highly inappropriate, and that its hard to imagine it was accidental.
Page 4589 and 4590, the jury has returned and Merchan gives the curative instruction (the text of which was proposed by the prosecution, and not objected to by the defense).
As much as I wanted to see a conviction, I find it sad that the country has come to this and impossible to celebrate. The jury seems to have taken its job seriously. That’s good. He got a fair shake, I believe. But wishing somebody into the corn field and the defendant’s actions that have spurred that desire are pretty ugly all around.
Trump’s mouth may still yet get him confined by continuously flouting the gag order which I feel certain he will do and may be taken into account on July 11. Dunno that for sure but it wouldn’t surprise me.
Assuming the conviction survives, a big stack of sentencing points awaits him for any other convictions also. I could see him getting even more desperate.
I’m definitely sending Trump to the corn field!
Now, now…what did the corn field ever do to you?
I expect Trump’s mouth to continue to run just as it always has. He loves and needs the coverage and could make hay with a sentence involving incarceration. He has nowhere to go other than to dial up the rhetoric.
Like you, I don’t celebrate this and honestly I am finding some of the comments on this board downright scary in their hubris and veiled authoritarianism (e.g. comments that the Biden administration should simply bypass the judicial branch). This case is just one battle in a bigger context and the blowback will be hard. It’s no time to get drunk and be merry.
I feel GOOD about the verdict, and am fine with feeling merry about it.
You’re right that the only solution will be at the ballot box. Given that these are the lowest level felonies in New York, first offenders usually get no jail time. While there are good reason for Trump to be sentenced to jail, it would be unlikely that it would be more than a few months, even given the judge sticking with his guns & having his sentence begin the day after the election, Trump would be out in time for the inauguration. (It would be a magnificent troll for Biden to send Trump an invitation to Biden’s second inaugural while he was in jail!)
It is easy to get lost in the legal weeds and in scoring legal victories.
It is not just that Trump was convicted. Trump is convicted of fraud in covering up his payments to a porn star to keep her quiet about a sexual encounter. Had she gone public before the election, people would have known that the “Access Hollywood” tape was not locker room talk but was the nominee describing his sexual predation m.o. and his rationalization for it. We now know what a creep he is.
Apparently, a large segment of the population thinks this tawdry low life of a man deserves to be President again. Disheartening.
Todd Blanche certainly thought this case was all about Trump fucking an adult film star. Unless he thought that was the best deflection from the crimes he was furthering by creating these false business records.
It also seems possible, in addition, that Trump is so obsessed with having the manliness his father wanted him to have, that he would have gone to prison to stop Stormy Daniels from deflating his…balloon.
Manly men don’t wear orange foundation make-up, or spray their hair with so much Aquanet that the hair stays put during a CAT5 hurricane – but drag queens do. Nor do manly men lie about their weight or gossip like a middle school girl. Manly men don’t rate women’s looks or diminish women as mere sexual objects.
Unattractive (both body and soul), effete, soft men compensating for being short-changed in the male unit department do this. No matter how much Donald J. Trump plays Village People’s “Macho Man” daily – he’ll never be one.
I’ve been away having a very intensely difficult (and creative) time, so I’ve been away from the threads here. I’m alright. I still have my job, anyway, marriage, and all that. The situation with me, to use a metaphor, is that basically, I have four Clydesdales pulling, but my dad passed away a few months ago, and that kind of thing will give me two more. Then I pull harder than anybody, but those two are crazy.
It took me a decades into adulthood and a great deal of strangeness to learn those two weren’t as strong as the other four together, and I can keep things in a straight line with philosophy and science, but even in a straight line, they’ll pull me for 2000 words, so I’ve been away, because I’m barely tolerable in terms of my volubility as normal “wetzel-rhymes-with”, and you don’t want me hyper-voluble. However, today is a special day for emptywheel, all my friends here, and I wanted to pop in and say hello before signing out again. Cheers.
Hello, wetzel. Could have simply written the first two sentences and closed with the last two. *sigh*
I am sorry to hear you lost your father, wetzel.
wetzel, my condolences for your father’s passing. I know how disorienting that can be, and I hope and pray life settles back into order for you as you deal with the emotions you must be feeling.
The thing about stacked dominoes is that it all goes down with just one tumble, however seemingly insignificant. The only asset of the grifter is the continuing confidence of his marks. How many guilty verdicts does it take before non-cult Republican voters begin to refuse the offer…?
Polls showed that a quarter of all Republicans and 60% of independent voters would not vote for a convicted felon. Now the rubber has hit the road…so we’ll be finding out how close to accurate those polls are per se in November…if Trump’s still in the election at that point.
Today’s verdict may feel good, and it’s great we can now finally say, he’s a convicted felon, but if Trump wins in November, does any of this matter?
Trump has been indicted four times and he’s now a convicted felon, yet he’s polling better than Biden.
All of these political prosecutions make him stronger.
Wake up people!
I wouldn’t characterize the prosecutions as “political,” though Trump and his base certainly do. Why are you characterizing them that way?
These legal cases make his base more enthusiastic. But they haven’t made him stronger with the electorate at large, and we’re going to have to wait and see what the impact of his conviction is on undecided voters. Personally, I hope Biden comes out with an ad along the lines of “Trump: found liable for business fraud, found liable for sexual assault, convicted for falsifying business records [with newspaper images of these findings in the background]. The President is supposed to uphold our laws, not break them. Trump: a danger to the rule of law. Vote Biden.”
All criminal cases are brought by an agency of the state, by definition a political entity. The cases are all political. That is probably not the sense being used here, but all criminal cases are political. Prosecuting agencies have vast discretion about prosecuting or not. Those are political decisions as much as they are decisions about whether or not the agency can win a case.
President Biden is facilitating bombing of Gaza with US armaments. Do you consider that lawful? If you consider that lawful do you consider that ethical? Do you consider lawfulness or ethics political decisions?
Using that tack, arguably civil cases are also political, since they, too, involve the state, and the decisions about what is and isn’t legal are also political. But if all legal cases are political, then “political” doesn’t distinguish among them, so I don’t use it that way.
As for Biden and Gaza, I consider it legal but not ethical. I do consider the creation of laws to be political, but whether I consider lawfulness per se and ethics to be political depends on the specifics of the (un)lawfulness and the ethical issue (e.g., I don’t generally think of the illegal act of jaywalking as political).
Despite my belief that Biden’s choice is unethical, I still think that it’s important to vote for him, the only candidate now running who has a chance of beating Trump. Here’s one discussion of why:
https://x.com/mehdirhasan/status/1781120448186462407 (AOC’s response to a question from Mehdi Hasan, “What do you say to a young progressive or an Arab-American who says to you, ‘I just can’t vote for Biden again after what he’s enabled in Gaza.’?”)
The indictment was returned by a Grand Jury. That jury of his peers determined that there was probable cause to bring the case to trial. It wasn’t political. A substantive number of the issues in question were already brought forward by Trump’s DoJ against his fixer, Michael Cohen, who was sentenced to 3 years in prison and served a year or so in Otisville federal penitentiary. Trump was named in the same indictment as Individual 1 but was excluded from that prosecution because of an Office of Legal Counsel opinion that a sitting president may not be prosecuted while in office. Trump’s DoJ also interfered in the investigation by SDNY.
Biden’s DoJ closed the investigation when they couldn’t get Cohen to stipulate to all instances of criminal activity that he ever engaged in or was aware of per DoJ’s standard immunity agreements. That limited their firsthand witnesses available to testify to the agreements.
Manhattan doesn’t have that restriction and therefore was able to pick up the investigation they had on hold waiting for SDNY to act. If anything, the obstruction and crimes committed were political, not the Grand Jury and trial.
The crime was political, not the grand jury’s indictment.
Committing fraud to hide extramarital sex to protect his campaign for president is political, but the prosecution of fraud isn’t.
Spare the sermonizing. These are not “political” decisions. And polls today, even if accurate – many of them are skewed – are not much guide to voting in November.
“Yet he’s polling better than Biden” sounds like MSM horserace coverage to me. Sure, Trump needs to lose bigly at the ballot box, but because he’s demonstrated who he is and announced his plans for his reich, not because some crappy polls pumped by news outlets addicted to Trump clickbait are telling us he’s viable, or that Biden isn’t.
It’s been a long time since polling was worth a damn. Overestimating its value was part of the complacency that got HRC in trouble in 2016.
interesting thing to say given there hasn’t yet been time to conduct any post-conviction polls.
Yeah, maybe he’ll still be up a week from now, but we’re not there yet. I think I’m going to at least wait to see what will actually happens.
(I seem to recall there was going to be a “red wave” in 2022…)
I hear ya for sure and I hope you are right, but how is Trump beating Biden with all this negative press.
Same thing happened in 2016 with him being negatively talked about 24/7. How did that work out?
Stop feeding monster.
You might want to go back and check the most powerful media sources. Coverage of Trump in 2016 was anything but negative, especially compared to his opponent. The mainstream “opinion shapers” had a lot to gain from normalizing his candidacy, and later his presidency, and still later a GOP that has turned into little more than a personality cult.
If a comprehensive review is too daunting, go back and check out the Times. Under Dean Baquet’s leadership, Clinton’s emails were a scandal but not Trump’s many, many ties to Russia, organized crime, or his own past bankruptcies–the ones that gave the lie to his claim of being a genius “businessman.”
Or you could just read it all here. It IS here. If you care.
Reversion to the mean.
There will be a spike of right-wing outrage and Trump will look better in polls for a few weeks, then it will settle back to the same hardened, polarized electorate the U.S. had before this trial. Unless there is actually a cohort of undecided Trump voters out there who will switch allegiance to Biden when this sinks in (which I doubt), it probably won’t affect polling.
Democrats have to do the hard work of getting out the vote, and beat Trump at the ballot box in November.
One word: Accountability
The jury deserves our respect.
Love the title of this EW posting!
Trump has been a privileged spoiled brat criminal nincompoop his entire life.
And the prosecution didn’t ambush Trump with new laws in the thirty-four count indictment against him.
Trump and his fleet of attorneys knew the laws of the State of New York better than most people do. He simply didn’t think he’d get caught breaking any laws.
And the jury didn’t believe his BS defense.
The fist pumping knucklehead Trump tries to act like he’s a persecuted soul just trying to live by the Golden Rule.
Trump’s not very good at that, too.
Wondering if this guilty verdict will spur more indictments on trump being dropped?
Dropped or dropping?
I wonder if any jurors voted to convict because Trump did not take the stand…and I also wonder if that’ll become an issue if/when some of the jurors make public statements on why they voted to convict.
A juror in this case would be very stupid and/or vain to go public. Fingers crossed they take the prudent course.
How much do you think David Pecker would pay for an exclusive interview? Just sayin…
Trump doesn’t do well when questioned under oath. It’s likely the jurors would have reached consensus much sooner than the 11 hour deliberation. What could he testify to? That he did it to hide the whole thing from his wife (who was never with him during the whole trial)? Or I did nothing wrong, everybody does this.
If I were advising these jurors, I would strongly advise them to say, “No comment,” whenever asked about their deliberations or reasons for their verdict. They already have a target painted on their backs. Why make it bigger?
As for your question about whether any of them “voted to convict because Trump did not take the stand,” FFS.
The jury instructions will have specified that the defendant – as in every criminal trial – need not take the stand or say anything in his own defense, and that the jury may not make any negative inference, should the defendant choose not to testify. Do you think admitting to an impermissible rationale would help this conviction survive appeal?
So you don’t like the question and the possible answer? Got it. However, that won’t stop Trump’s lawyers from appealing this verdict if there’s any whiff of this sort of sentiment on the part of any member of the jury during deliberations.
I don’t think you do. Feelings aren’t relevant. You can’t appeal based on a “whiff of this sort of sentiment,” which you seem to have made up. Trump will appeal this verdict, regardless of whether he has adequate grounds to do so,
This is a good day, but what I keep at the forefront of my thinking and action is what emptywheel has been saying for months and years: the courts will not decide the electoral college count in November. That’s on us. Support local and state pols doing the right things. Talk to your neighbor flying a Trump flag (if you can do so safely). The jury did its job on a weird case. Let’s do ours on a larger one.
earlofhuntingdon says:
May 30, 2024 at 11:00 pm
Pulled my copy of Catullus out of the stack (it’s bilingual, facing Latin and English) and the translation they give is “up yours”
Heh.
That’s putting it lightly.
“Up yours” would not earn a passing grade in Latin translation. That’s like saying the Hindenburg made a poor landing in Lakehurst, NJ.
This is probably a stupid question, but if Trump is elected, can these felony convictions be used to Impeach him? This seems to meet the definition of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Not that in reality it would happen.
I keep thinking about how now we seen an ex-president on trial. It happened and the country did not spontaneously combust. And it was Trump on trial and it was mostly just a trial. We’ve been led to believe the country would fall apart if an ex-president was put on trial. And a lot have believed a Trump trial would be a complete circus and Trump is Teflon coated anyway so why bother. But these bridges have been crossed now. I wonder what will happen next?
Likely ratchet the bat-shit crazy to 11 – and it has already started – Lindsey?:
‘What to watch: Graham also suggested that the decision sets a dangerous precedent for prosecuting former presidents.
“Two can play this game,” Graham said.’
(H/T to Axios)
Tucker already alluding to potential assassination prior to the election.
Yada yada blah blah blah.
That stupid stuff is not what I’m talking about. This is what I’m talking about- This trial was very mostly safe, sane and sober. I am curious to see how it affects other trials that could choose the safe, sane and sober route. This trial broke the ice while showing how it could be done- I have to think that will worm its way into other trials and into people’s actions/thoughts. Plus, Trump is no longer Teflon coated; he is no longer a never losing Superman figure. That’s gotta eat a worm hole into some people’s brains and do something to their actions. What? Idk. But I’ll be looking for it.
Yes. The point of no person being above the law is that we’re all susceptible to accountability. Graham trying to make this his disjointed argument for some sort of retribution is laughable.
As for Carlson, one must ask how many assassinations he’ll be happy with before he stops.
Yesterday, I posted a measured response to bmaz’s assertion that he cares more about the law than about Trump. I pointed out that this was an obtuse contention given that, should Trump return to the WH, he would BE the law and that the procedural niceties that bmaz is properly concerned about would survive only if they didn’t come in conflict with some illegitimate goal of Trump’s maladministration. Rayne saw fit to delete the post without comment. That’s a helluva way to treat a paying subscriber, Rayne. Do not delete this post or I will no longer be a regular contributor.
[Moderator’s note: First, there was no comment in the Pending, Trash, or Spam bins from you. Had I seen one which complied with the comment policy I would have cleared it for publication. Second, this comment went into auto-moderation likely because of your history using different username/URL variations; the system hasn’t seen consistent entries long enough to “learn” not to auto-moderate. Third, your comment is being cleared for publication *now* because I’m a human volunteer and I actually have more going on than clearing comments like this one, though I don’t owe you that explanation. Lastly, we do not require subscriptions to read posts or comment here. /~Rayne]
A lot of people contribute to this site in many ways. None of them claim “subscriber rights” and protected speech the way you do. Think about it.
No, were he re-elected, Trump would not “BE” the law.
Hopefully, America matures. It’s a young country after all.
For bmaz. Disliking this case, what about Cohen and his plea? Do you distinguish that by his training and license, on a should have known better/acted better view?
I cannot believe they’d have gotten a search warrant if he’d assisted a city council member. It was special tracked from day one, or seems so.
No need to respond, but think it over. And back then you may have posted something. I was not reading EW then.
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.