That Was Quick
Well that certainly didn't take long! After less than 10 hours of deliberating, the jury in Donald Trump's first criminal trial returned their verdict. It was a sweeping one: guilty on all 34 charges. Donald Trump will henceforth be known as: "convicted felon Donald Trump."
The speed of the jury's deliberations was astonishing. Ten hours is barely enough time to get organized and take care of all the procedural requirements, for a case with 34 charges. In the midst of their deliberations, the jury requested that the judge read back about half of his jury instructions to them and also that they hear read in court some testimony from two of the witnesses: David Pecker and Michael Cohen. This was done this morning. The judge read the jury instructions again, then clerks took the place of lawyers and the witness and read back three selections of testimony from Pecker and one from Cohen. The jury then disappeared back into their room to consider it all. All the court-watchers thought the judge was going to let the jury off for the day at 4:30, but right before then the jury reported that they had reached verdicts and just needed another half-hour to fill out all the official verdict paperwork.
But it seems there wasn't any real point of contention between one faction of jurors and another -- they were likely just being overcautious and dotting every legal "I" and crossing every "T." For them to return a verdict this quickly, they must have all been pretty much in agreement all along. So a little after 5:00, the verdicts were read: "Guilty... guilty... guilty..." for all 34 counts. Trump was not a happy camper, obviously. Sentencing has been tentatively scheduled for July 11th.
After that, the process of appeals will begin. Trump, of course, will appeal the decision with a fury, taking it as far as he is legally able. This will mean appeals all the way up to the highest state court in New York, and then appeals in federal court all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. This all seems pretty certain, knowing Trump's penchant for exploring every legal avenue available to him. Whether he'll be successful at any of it is an open question, but most legal experts seem to agree that the judge in the case was absolutely bending over backwards to be as fair as humanly possible, so the feeling seems to be that Trump's appeals don't have a very good chance of success anywhere. We'll see. He doesn't even have to file any of his appeals until after the election (he's got six months to do so).
The sentencing is an open question, of course. Each charge carries with it a possible four-year prison term, so if you do the math if the judge truly wanted to "throw the book" at Trump he could sentence Trump to up to 136 years in prison. That, however, is not going to happen. Even if the judge thinks Trump merits the maximum punishment, he'd still almost certainly allow the sentences to run concurrently and not consecutively. So the most Trump will realistically be sentenced to would be four years in prison. Which is also not likely to happen. Trump, at this point, is a first-time offender. This is the first time he has been convicted of a felony in his entire life. And first-time offenders don't typically get maximum sentences -- in fact, they usually get something a lot closer to the minimum sentence. In this case, that would be some form of probation, perhaps house arrest, or even community service (irreverent thought: wouldn't it be fun to see Trump picking up trash along a highway?).
However, while any other convicted felon in Trump's shoes might draw a minimal sentence for a first-time offense (on white-collar crimes), Trump is not "any other convicted felon." His behavior during the trial and (assumably) after the trial and before sentencing has been (and will continue to be, no doubt) absolutely atrocious, legally-speaking. He is never going to show any contrition or even admit any guilt. He will continue attacking the judge, the prosecutor, President Joe Biden, the entire legal system, and (if he decides to violate his gag order again) maybe even the witnesses, the jury, or family members of the judge. This is such blatantly contemptuous behavior that it might provoke the judge in the case to impose a heavier sentence, in order to "send a message" to other defendants that such behavior is not only unacceptable but also has serious consequences.
But the sentence doesn't even really matter. Whether Trump eventually does have to go to jail for a few months or not is pretty much immaterial to the political impact of the case. Personally, if I were in Vegas placing a bet, I wouldn't expect Trump to get more than -- at the very most -- a single year in prison. I would put my money on some form of probation or parole, in fact, with perhaps a couple months in prison tacked on for all the shenanigans Trump pulled.
Politically, the question is whether any of this is going to change anybody's mind or not. You're going to hear the term "defies gravity" a lot from now on, since Trump has proven time and again that scandals that would take down any other politician simply don't touch him. His supporters just don't seem to care about anything Trump did -- it's more of a personality cult than a political movement. The "Dear Leader" can do no wrong, so anyone who says he did is obviously just jealous of him and out to get him.
But that describes only Trump's hardcore MAGA base. The real question is whether this will do Trump any damage at the margins of the Republican Party or not. There are a lot of Republican voters out there who have (so far) been willing to hold their noses and vote for Trump solely because he is a fellow Republican, even if they don't approve of a lot of things he says and does. Will some of them reach the conclusion that they just cannot bring themselves to vote for a convicted felon for president? Will it affect Trump's support with the "undecided" or "unaffiliated" voters in the middle? The outcome of the election might hinge on those two questions. Because things are so close, a marginal movement away from Trump of only a few percentage points might be enough to secure the re-election of Joe Biden.
Trump will not be the first convicted felon to run for president. It's happened before, even from within a jail cell. But he will be the first convicted felon to be nominated by one of the major two American political parties. That's certainly never happened before.
Trump, throughout his political career, has set many "firsts" -- a lot of which are shameful things no sane individual would brag about. We can now add to that list "the first ex-president to be convicted of felonies." This summer, he will officially become "the first convicted felon to be nominated by a major political party." One very interesting quirk in all of this is that the state of Florida -- where Trump is registered to vote -- does not allow convicted felons to vote before they have completely their full sentence (including parole or probation). So Donald Trump may also not even be able to vote for himself in November.
Will any of this change anything? Stay tuned...
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
That was quick was my reaction, too. But, then I thought, this case really wasn't that complicated and certainly not as complicated as much of the media made it out to be.
I liked the use of the rain analogy, commonly used by judges when delivering their jury instructions, I understand. That analogy was very appropriate for this case in which there was bad news for a presidential candidate who wanted it to go away and was willing to pay a big sum to make it go away as to not hurt his campaign to win the presidency. Actually, even with the new theories put forth by the prosecution to charge Trump with 34 felony counts, this was probably one of the least complicated cases ever. Hence the quick verdict against Trump.
Here's hoping that the everyday focus won't now be on the sentencing and appeals process ...
In retrospect, I believe it was a mistake for the defense to forgo the option of allowing the jury to consider lesser charges. Factually there's no reasonable doubt whatsoever that the defendant did what he was accused of. Counting on at least one of the jurors to harbor unreasonable doubts was probably a weaker strategy than claiming the charges were excessive relative to the violations.
nypoet22 [2]
If I had to guess, it would be that Trump himself insisted that it be that way. Perhaps his ego wouldn't allow him to conceive of being convicted, or perhapshe felt that a conviction of a lesser charge would end up serving him less effectively in his campaign, but either way, a micromanager like him strikes me as the sort to insist on making such a decision for himself.
@bleyd,
certainly possible. it was not an entirely insane risk though, given the number of people out there who genuinely believe the witch hunt narrative. all it would have taken was one, they just happened not to get one. part thorough juror vetting, part luck.
So, how does everyone here feel about how Biden should play this conviction - and, by Biden, I mean him, personally, and anyone who is even remotely connected to his re-election team?
Because, how Biden and his entire team responds to this can make or break his re-election campaign.
Refer to him as convicted felon Trump. The cult will be outraged but they’re always outraged. Only in your alternative hand-wringing universe would Joe’s response to Trump’s 34 felony convictions some how make or break Joe’s campaign, Elizabeth. *smh*
Mostly I want Biden to appeal to young people: "If you're going to be around for 2050, you're not going to like the world you see if Trump wins the next 4 years. I'm Joe Biden, and I'm fighting to save the earth from climate change. Trump is fighting to roll back all progress."
If Trump is convicted in another trial, the sentencing can take this conviction into account. Assuming it's not overturned on appeal, of course. And assuming that enough people in key states have seen what a sleazy liar he is and don't vote for him.
andygaus,
I'm Joe Biden, and I'm fighting to save the earth from climate change.
If only that were true.
even if it's ultimately overturned, the conviction will in all likelihood remain in place through november.
Elizabeth Miller
1
Wow, Elizabeth. For someone who spent a lot of time shitting all over this case, you've sure done a 180.
I liked the use of the rain analogy, commonly used by judges when delivering their jury instructions, I understand. That analogy was very appropriate for this case in which there was bad news for a presidential candidate who wanted it to go away and was willing to pay a big sum to make it go away as to not hurt his campaign to win the presidency.
The crime was the falsifying of business records in order to cover up the payoff, and there was a mountain of paper evidence as well as testimony from multiple witnesses who were friends and employees of Trump.
For someone who spent a lot of time shitting all over this case, you've sure done a 180.
Oh, really? How so?
Sometimes, it can be hard to see the forest for the trees when being so argumentative and seeing things - and, in this case, reading and responding to comments - in such a superficial way.
I think you'd be amazed, Kick, at the depth of discussion that could be had if only there was less mean-spirited knee-jerk reaction and more understanding and insightful curiosity.
We should try it sometime!
Elizabeth Miller
13
Oh, really? How so?
So you're saying you already forgot? I really have no desire to refresh your memory regarding your repetitive trashing of this "ah, trial" (your term) considering your memory is demonstrably slipping.
If you're really interested, I remind you the forum is archived; you should avail yourself of re-reading your whiney posts. :)
Elizabeth Miller
14
Sometimes, it can be hard to see the forest for the trees when being so argumentative and seeing things - and, in this case, reading and responding to comments - in such a superficial way.
I agree you have a problem. Maybe if you could stop yourself from trying to control everyone else's posts you could begin to get over it. :)
I think you'd be amazed, Kick, at the depth of discussion that could be had if only there was less mean-spirited knee-jerk reaction and more understanding and insightful curiosity.
I'd be really amazed if you could stop yourself from trying to control every other poster on the blog. However, you've proven repeatedly you can't control yourself, and it'll be a cold day in hell when you can control me. :)