Dem
51
GOP
49
We have to imagine that anyone who is a reader of this site has heard by now, but just in case: The verdict came down in the Donald Trump criminal fraud case yesterday and it was a clean sweep—guilty on all 34 counts. Trump prides himself on being a trailblazer and, well, he's done it again. He is the first current or former president to be convicted of a felony. Not even Dick Nixon could pull that off (not for lack of trying, mind you).
Big News
Was the verdict big news? As folks in the Midwest might put it: You betcha. Here are the websites of selected American media outlets after the verdict:
International sites:
And some right-wing sites:
As you can see, the right-wing spin operation got underway very quickly, with WND referring to it as a "leftist NYC trial," OAN describing it as a "so-called hush money trial," Fox going with the headline "absolutely insane," and Breitbart suggesting (in one of the smaller subheads) that the Democrats only did this to have a "talking point." Note also that projection/whataboutism is never far away; WND's masthead is directing visitors to a book about the deep state, OAN has a poll about how mentally compromised Joe Biden is, and Breitbart has a poll about whether or not Biden should be impeached.
Anyhow, as you have undoubtedly figured out by now, this is big enough news that we're going to give the whole day over to it. Normal Friday posting will be back next week, of course.
What Actually Happened?
We suspect that most readers know most of this information, but just to make sure, let's run it down. Yesterday, the jury once again asked for a few things from the Court, including a re-reading of some testimony. Around 4:00, after close to 10 total hours of deliberations, Judge Juan Merchan was getting ready to send the panel home with instructions to reassemble on Friday to resume their work. And then, the jurors shared the somewhat unexpected news that they were all done, thank you very much. It took them about half an hour to fill out all the necessary paperwork, and then they marched into the courtroom and dropped the hammer on the former president. The verdict form was officially completed at 4:20, by the way, which means there's something a bit poetic about the exact moment at which Trump's hopes of beating the rap went up in smoke.
It is a shame that video recordings were not allowed in the courtroom, because the change in Donald Trump's body language was apparently a sight to behold. When it appeared that the jurors were going to need a third day, he was upbeat and was joking with his lawyers. When the jurors announced their verdict, Trump became Mr. Stoneface, with his arms crossed in front of him. He was not a happy camper, not surprisingly.
The reason we wish there was a camera is not for the schadenfreude of seeing Trump suffer. No, we'd like to see exactly how the transition from "upbeat Trump" to "angry Trump" unfolded, because different people who were in the courtroom are reporting it differently. See, the moment the jurors said they had a verdict, that was either bad news for Trump or really bad news for Trump. That meant no hung jury, and the odds of a straight acquittal on 34 counts were virtually zero. So, the best plausible case for the defendant, once the jury had reached a verdict, was that the jurors had nailed him on some of the counts (say, the fraudulent business records) but that they weren't willing to make the leap needed to find him guilty of a felony.
In any event, we'd like to know if he realized he was in trouble as soon as the jury announced they had reached a verdict, or if he's either so lacking in insight, or so fully immersed in his bubble, that he did not appreciate what was going on until the foreperson actually started saying the word "guilty" over and over.
It's also worth noting that while Trump and his Republican enablers are going to spin this as a sham operation staged by Democrats (see both above and below for more), the performance of the jurors could hardly have done more to undermine that narrative. We joked about having a verdict after just a few hours of deliberations, but if the verdict had come in that quickly, it would have been terrible optics, as it would appear that the jurors had pre-judged Trump, and didn't even bother to discuss the evidence. As it is, they clearly did due diligence, including discussing things for a couple of days and asking for multiple re-readings of testimony and jury instructions. At the same time, the ultimate conclusion was clear enough that it did not take days or weeks of dickering to reach it. Further, it was a sweep—34-0, not 30-4, or 20-14, or 7-27. Again, the Trumpers are going to make their wild claims, but it would be hard to devise a scenario that does a better job of communicating "indisputably guilty."
After the jurors broke the bad news to the defendant, Merchan thanked them for their service, met with them in private for a few minutes, and then sent them home.
What Happens Next?
If you believe some of the folks on Fox, the most immediate impact of the verdict will be a stock market crash. The Dow is down 1,000 points over the last 3 days, so even if it does happen (unlikely), it's not necessarily related to the verdict. The one thing that is certain is that in after-hours trading Thursday night, the value of DJT stock dropped almost 10%.
Merchan has set a date of July 11 for sentencing. Many media outlets have pointed out that date is very close to the Republican National Convention, which starts on July 15. This is true, and the juxtaposition may be interesting, but it doesn't really mean anything. No matter what Merchan does on that day, the RNC is still going to nominate Trump for president. And during the convention, there will surely be much talk of persecution, a justice system gone mad, etc. All of this would be true if sentencing was scheduled for today, or if it was scheduled for July 11, 2025.
So, what kind of sentence might Merchan hand down? There is nobody on the planet who knows that right now. That includes Juan Merchan, who gets to ponder a question of a sort that no other judge in American history has ever pondered. Trump has been convicted of 34 Class E felonies; that carries a maximum penalty of 136 years in prison. Of course, he's not actually going to get 136 years. In fact, most experts (including DA Alvin Bragg) predict Trump won't get any time behind bars. He's a first-time felon, and his crimes are white-collar in nature. Plus, the optics of putting him in jail or in prison, given how many people in similar circumstances get a non-carceral sentence, would not be good.
That said, the alternative punishments each have their problems. Merchan could impose a fine, but the fine would be no more than $170,000, which is hardly a meaningful punishment for a guy who's already been hit with $500 million in fines just this year. Community service is an option, but the logistics of that are... interesting, given the U.S. Secret Service's protective responsibilities. Trump is also probably not mentally or physically fit enough for most community service assignments. A common option is 5 years' probation, but checking in with a probation officer anytime Trump travels gets very interesting indeed if he is reelected as president.
Home detention is also an option. An ankle bracelet would be needed to enforce it. If Trump is elected president, he would be detained at the White House. He could still do his job there but it would definitely crimp his style. The U.S.S.S. would be fine with this penalty. The main problem with it is that it is not much of a punishment.
So, it's at least possible that Merchan decides some jail time is the least problematic option. After all, Michael Cohen and Allen Weisselberg, Trump's co-conspirators, both did time for their roles in the fraudulent activities for which the former president was just convicted. And a few months behind bars would be an eye-opener for Trump, in a way that takes a few years (or more) for most people. If Trump actually ends up serving time, he'd be sent to Rikers Island if his term is less than a year, or to a state prison if it's more than a year.
Naturally, we are a long way from Trump's actually being behind bars. He will appeal the verdict, and will drag that process out as long as is possible. He's got a month to file the preliminary appeal plus another 6 months to perfect the appeal. That's 7 months, and the presidential election is less than 7 months away. So, he'll certainly still be a free man on Election Day. And then, if he is returned to the White House, it is very hard to imagine that a sitting president could spend part of his term behind bars. So, even if his appeals fail, Trump could be half a decade from actually reporting to jail/prison, even if Merchan decides on incarceration.
Note, incidentally, that despite the confidence of the Republican politicians listed below, it's not easy to prevail on appeal. Merchan appears to have run a pretty tight ship, consistent with his extensive experience on the bench. And for the verdict to be overturned, it's not enough for the appellate judges to say "I think this was incorrect" or "I wouldn't have done it this way." No, they have to conclude that, but for some error or errors by Merchan, Trump would not have been convicted. That's a tall hill for Team Donald to climb when the jury was unanimous on all 34 counts. Like, Mount Everest tall.
One point the defense will surely bring up in the appeal is that the judge let Stormy Daniels go on too long about the actual sex with Trump. They will say he should have stopped it because it was prejudicial against Trump. The prosecution will respond with: "Why didn't you object?" The judge later also wondered why the defense didn't object and said if they had, he would have sustained their objection but it wasn't his job to tell the defense when to object. The prosecution will also say that establishing that Trump had something to hide establishes his motive for cooking the books. Once the prosecution has established that the defendant had a reason to commit the crime, the rest of the case becomes much easier. Also, in her testimony, Daniels said that Trump asked her about the business aspects of the porn industry, like how much the woman makes for a video, how much the man makes, what the video sells for, etc. Most people having sex with a porn star would probably ask different things. This conversation is so weird, but so Trumpian, that the jury probably thought "Nobody could make this stuff up," enhancing Daniels' credibility as a witness. Maybe there is some karma in the world. When Trump first cornered Daniels in his hotel room, he probably thought: "I've got her now. What's she going to do about it?" Now he knows.
One last thing. When it comes to voting rights, Florida defers to out-of-state laws on disenfranchisement when dealing with out-of-state convictions. In other words, Trump might be a Florida man, but it's New York law that will decide whether he can vote or not in the 2024 election. And under New York law, a felon can vote as long as they are not in prison. Given that Trump won't be there anytime soon, he will thus be able to vote this year. That actually works against him. When reporters (or a debate moderator) asks: "Will you vote for the Florida initiative enshrining abortion in the state Constitution?" he can't say: "I am not allowed to vote."
Let the Finger-Pointing Begin
Trump's lead attorney, Todd Blanche, tried an OK case, by all accounts. That is to say, he wasn't an epic failure like Alina Habba or Joe Tacopina, but he was also no Johnnie Cochran or Clarence Darrow. The choice not to put Trump on the stand was defensible and, in fact, entirely correct. But Blanche failed to present a compelling narrative of events to compete with the one being put forward by the prosecution. And clearly, just poking a hole here and a hole there was not enough to avoid a conviction.
After the verdict yesterday, Blanche was all over TV. Part of his agenda was to begin laying out what an appeal will look like, and what issues he expects to raise. But part of the agenda was also to shift blame to the client. He told Fox that Trump was "very much involved" in jury selection, and he told CNN that Trump played a central role in determining his defense strategy. We have no doubt these things are true. However, Trump does not like losers, and he does not like underlings who dare to cast aspersions on him and his brilliance. Don't be too surprised if Trump parts ways with Blanche, just like he's parted ways with half a dozen other defense attorneys this year. For Blanche's sake, we hope he got an advance retainer big enough to cover his fee. Otherwise, collecting it probably won't be easy.
The Republican Response
Trump's response, in the moments following the end of the trial, was as predictable as the sun rising in the east. He attacked anyone and everyone involved in the trial, including the judge and jury, and insisted "I'm a very innocent man." In all his years of bluster, he has never learned that over-selling things is often a sign of weakness. You're either innocent or you're not; there's no such thing as "very innocent" and someone who claims that looks like they are overcompensating.
Trump is going to present himself as a martyr, of course, and is already fundraising off that shtick. Here's the main portion of one of the many fundraising e-mails his campaign sent out yesterday:
In the short term, he's going to get a big boost from this. Indeed, the webpage he uses for fundraising crashed a couple of times yesterday afternoon because of traffic levels it was unable to handle.
The former president also went nuts on "Truth" Social, of course, including posting several black and white videos, like this one, that have a definite Triumph of the Will feel to them.
Meanwhile, here is the response from half a dozen prominent Republican politicians:
Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL): It is often said that no one is above the law, but it is also true that no one is below the law. If the defendant were not Donald Trump, this case would never have been brought, the judge would have never issued similar rulings, and the jury would have never returned a guilty verdict.
In America, the rule of law should be applied in a dispassionate, even-handed manner, not become captive to the political agenda of some kangaroo court.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA): 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.
The weaponization of our justice system has been a hallmark of the Biden Administration, and the decision today is further evidence that Democrats will stop at nothing to silence dissent and crush their political opponents.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY): These charges never should have been brought in the first place. I expect the conviction to be overturned on appeal.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): This disgraceful decision is legally baseless and should be overturned promptly on appeal. Any judge with a modicum of integrity would recognize that this entire trial has been utterly fraudulent.
Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC): This was certainly a hoax, a sham. This was devastating for the average American watching.
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY): Today's verdict shows how corrupt, rigged, and unAmerican the weaponized justice system has become under Joe Biden.
We could give you more, but it would just be redundant. You can see the key themes: Corrupt justice system, Biden is to blame, Trump will be exonerated. Of course, if the justice system really is corrupt and in the thrall of the White House, wouldn't the appeals court also be a part of that? Logical consistency is not the strong suit of the Trump-era Republican Party.
Most (or maybe all?) of these folks don't really believe what they are saying. They just have to pretend because they have to stay in the good graces of the Dear Leader. Yesterday also provided an object lesson in what happens if you don't toe the party line, 100%. Former Maryland governor Larry Hogan, now running for the U.S. Senate, attempted to put out a fairly neutral statement in response to the verdict:
Regardless of the result, I urge all Americans to respect the verdict and the legal process. At this dangerously divided moment in our history, all leaders—regardless of party—must not pour fuel on the fire with more toxic partisanship. We must reaffirm what has made this nation great: the rule of law.
The MAGA crowd went nuts, while Trump adviser Chris LaCivita decreed "You just ended your campaign," and promised that Team Trump would do whatever it takes to destroy Hogan. Angela Alsobrooks probably whispered: "Thank you, God. I really appreciate it."
The Democratic Response
In contrast to the Republican politicians, the Democratic politicians were very restrained in their response to the verdict. The White House had previously avoided comment on the trial, but yesterday said that the important lesson here is that no man is above the law. A Biden campaign spokesperson added "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."
Team Biden did do some fundraising off the verdict, although they kept it subtle, with their e-mail pitch simply reiterating that: "There's only one way to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office: At the ballot box." In other words, in contrast to Trump's fundraising e-mail, you wouldn't actually know about the convictions from the Biden message. The President's campaign advisors are reportedly discussing exactly how much to lean into "Trump the felon," and how much to leave that issue to breathe on its own.
Political Impact
This is the section you're really here for, right? Our thoughts on whether or not this will actually hurt Trump's reelection chances?
We'll start by saying that you shouldn't pay too much attention to those polls that report that some sizable percentage of voters will be affected by a guilty verdict. First of all, people don't actually know how they will respond to a thing until that thing happens. Second, the questions are often worded in a way that produces misleading results. For example, if the question is "Will a guilty verdict make you more likely to vote for Trump?," a MAGA fanatic might say "yes," because a jump from 99.999% certain to 99.9999999% certain is technically "more likely." But, of course, nothing really changed in terms of the horse race.
There is no exact precedent for what happened yesterday because no other major-party presidential candidate has been convicted of a felony in the midst of a campaign. Our thinking is that the closest parallel available is the impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998-99. That precedent suggests three important things to us:
Following from this, not to mention the fundraising boost yesterday, we would not be terribly surprised to see Trump actually get a bounce in polls in the next few weeks. It's not a certainty, since the Clinton "prosecution," handled entirely by politicians without the involvement of a neutral judge and a jury of citizens, was much more nakedly partisan than the Trump prosecution. But it could well happen.
Long term, however, we think this will indeed hurt Trump. It may not hurt him a LOT, but even a little matters in a race that is as close as 2024 figures to be. We further suspect that Trump will increase the damage done by pandering to his base with constant talk of victimhood and a corrupt justice system and the like. That means he'll be talking less about "stop the steal," which will relieve his handlers, but all the martyr talk, while red meat for the base, will serve to alienate moderates.
We will also point out that for Clinton, impeachment was one and done. For Trump, on the other hand, yesterday's conviction takes place against the backdrop of not one, not two, but three other ongoing prosecutions. It's entirely possible that none of those get before a judge and jury before Election Day. But, whether this is fair or not, conviction in Case #1 is going to cause some people to say to themselves "If he's guilty in one case, there's a good chance he's guilty in some or all of the others."
Put it this way: If Trump had managed to avoid conviction in New York, it would have lessened the importance of the other cases, because he would be able to say "Those cases are just as flimsy as the one in New York." In the absence of actual trials, some people would accept that. And if acquittal/a hung jury in New York lessens the salience of the other three prosecutions, then it stands to reason that conviction (especially on all counts) in New York increases the salience.
One other thing to keep in mind is the Supreme Court ruling on Trump's immunity, which is expected in June. If the ruling is "absolutely no immunity," then the Jan. 6 trial could start in September. If the ruling is "There is immunity for official acts, but not private acts," then the trial judge, Tanya Chutkan, could immediately begin legal proceedings about whether Trump's speech to the rioters on Jan. 6, 2021 was an "official act." That testimony could be as damaging as an actual trial.
How About a Meme for the Road?
Because today's is not a normal Friday posting, there's no Freudenfreude. So as to end on an upbeat note nonetheless, how about some humorous Trump memes?
And that's our 4,500 words of insight on the Trump verdict, such as it is. (Z)