Trump guilty on all counts – so what happens next?
2024-05-30 00:21:51
Every Friday, Guardian columnist and former Washington correspondent, Jonathan Freedland, invites experts to help analyse the latest in American politics. From politicians to journalists covering the White House and beyond, Jonathan and his guests give listeners behind the scenes access to how the American political machine works.
This is The Guardian.
We are getting word, on the first count, that Donald Trump is.
guilty.
Donald Trump has made history again, becoming the first US president, sitting, or former, to be a convicted criminal. Late on Thursday, a New York jury found him guilty on all counts, 34 counts, of falsifying records to cover up a sex scandal.
To hear that word, guilty, not just once, but 34 times, about a former president of the United States, in any context, is completely uncharted territory.
Within minutes, Trump said he would appeal, and repeated what he'd said throughout, that this trial was rigged.
It's a rigged trial, a disgrace.
On a historic night in America, I'm Jonathan Friedland, columnist at The Guardian, and this is Politics Weekly America.
We thought that this was ending, at the end of the day, without a verdict, and then the judge came back on the bench, after saying he was going to excuse the jury, he returned at 4.
36 saying, the jury had another note, it was time-stamped at 4.
20, they had a verdict, and they needed an extra 30 minutes. The mood changed entirely inside the courtroom.
Shortly after 5pm, in court 1530, on the 15th floor of the Manhattan Courthouse building, the jury filed in, and dropped a political bombshell. As soon as we got word of this historic verdict, I got in touch with my Guardian US colleague, Sam Levine, who's been following all this, he's the democracy correspondent for Guardian US, and I began by asking him, what had the jury decided?
The jury tonight found Donald Trump guilty on all 34 counts of felony falsifying business records. So this case was about Donald Trump's efforts to cover up payments to Stormy Daniels, a porn star who he allegedly had an affair with in 2006.. And the story is, is that, as the 2016 election approached, Stormy Daniels was going to go public with her story, and Donald Trump and his lawyer, Michael Cohen, paid her $130,000 to stay quiet. That payment isn't illegal, that wasn't the issue. The problem was what they did.
afterwards. They orchestrated a scheme to conceal the payments and what the money was for, and the Manhattan District Attorney used that scheme to charge Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records.
Yeah, there was this sort of second crime you had to prove. A lot of legal experts thought that of the four big cases that are out there against Donald Trump, this one was actually the hardest one. Legally hard to prove, because you had to say, you know, it was a misdemeanor, just sort of being dodgy with your accounts, bookkeeping. They had to prove an underlying crime, a felony, which was an attempt effectively to defraud the electorate by hiding an election expense. Why was that so hard legally for the prosecutors?
Well, like you said, Johnny, falsifying business records in New York State is a misdemeanor. And in order to elevate it to a felony, the District Attorney and his prosecutors had to show that Trump falsified the records with the intent to commit another crime. And the question all of these legal experts asked was, what was the other crime? The District Attorney's theory was that Trump did this with the intent to defraud the public of information as the election approached. And he relied on a little used, I don't think it had ever been used before, statute that essentially says it's illegal to conspire with other people to influence the outcome of an election.
So the first part was that Trump falsified the business records with the intent to influence the outcome of the 2016 election.
Yeah, and it definitely would have influenced the outcome if people had known he'd had this one-night stand, this encounter with a porn star. Although saying that, people have known so much about Donald Trump, and he's got away with it. Maybe it wouldn't have had that big an effect, but he didn't want the electorate to know back in 2016.. And now we can say it's not alleged. Now we can say he actually did run this whole elaborate hush money scheme to ensure the electorate were not in full possession of the facts.
A lot of people did not think this case would be won. They thought somehow Trump would get away with it. It would only have taken one juror to have disagreed. That would have then meant, under New York law, it would have meant a hung jury and a mistrial. So what did it, do you think?
What swung this for the prosecution? Was it the testimony of Donald Trump's former right-hand man, his fixer, Michael Cohen? Was it the documents, cache of documents? What swung it, do you think?
I really don't think there was one thing that swung this case. There wasn't a dramatic moment. There wasn't evidence. It's really when you looked at the entire case together. And what I mean by that is I think the prosecutors did a really excellent job of taking this complicated legal issue, this story from seven years ago, and they carefully constructed a narrative for jurors that was very easy to understand.
It was, at times, salacious. They were talking about tabloid journalism, buying stories and then killing them. They had Stormy Daniels, the pornographic film star, testify on the stand about the moment she had the affair with Trump.
From his silk pajamas to calling Stormy Daniels honey bunch, this was the story Donald Trump didn't want the world to hear. But today, in a New York courtroom, the adult film star took the stand and watched by. the former president, spoke at length about their alleged sexual encounter in 2006.. The agonizing details made the man running for the White House visibly agitated. Even the judge said some of it would have been better left unsaid.
Just gripping details that really kept the jury's focus. And I think that, instead of getting bogged down in records and complicated campaign finance law, they really sought to situate the crime within a larger story about what Donald Trump was trying to do in the 2016 election and the way that he operated. And they were very successful in doing it. There were even little things that they did. Whenever they had a sort of boring piece of information, a document, a bank document, something that your eyes glaze over looking at, they would sprinkle that in between some of the more dramatic testimony so that jurors would never get bored or they would never lose their attention.
Really making a concerted effort to make sure that they could hold the jury's attention and make them understand the larger purpose of this scheme.
And no one would appreciate that kind of showmanship more than Donald Trump himself, the kind of TV Donald Trump who knows you've got to keep the audience, you've got to keep them stick with you and make it entertaining, which they did. A lot of people, we did a whole podcast about Michael Cohen, a lot of people were worried that that would be the weak point in the case, because he had himself been found guilty of lying and all kinds of crimes. And yet his testimony seems to the jury bought it.
That's right, Johnny. Going into the case, a lot of people were worried about the credibility of Michael Cohen. This is someone who is a known liar. He's been convicted of perjury, has all sorts of baggage. And this was a huge problem for prosecutors going into the case.
Their star witness, who could connect Trump to the hush money payments, was not reliable. And prosecutors rather smartly really prepared jurors to hear from Michael Cohen. They didn't call him first. He was called at the end of the case. And every witness that they brought up leading up to Michael Cohen, so David Pecker, Keith Davidson, who was Stormy Daniels' lawyer, they all testified about their dealings with Michael Cohen, and what a jerk that he was.
There were no surprises that this was someone who would bully. you, scream at. you, would say one thing one day and another thing the next day. So by the time that they heard from him, they knew exactly who they were getting on the stand. They knew that this was a flawed person.
They knew that this was someone who had a complicated history. But it didn't surprise them to hear any of that. And I think what prosecutors were really trying to show is that, despite all of this baggage, that he still had an underlying understanding and could provide a reliable testimony of what had happened with these payments.
Now, the big question that people are going to be asking straight away is, does this mean Donald Trump goes to jail?
That is the question that a lot of people are asking. And we'll have to see, but I don't think he's going to go to prison. It is a possibility. But experts I've spoken with have said, first, because Donald Trump is a first-time offender, this is a paper crime, you know, it involved documents, and it was essentially a white-collar crime, and it's a relatively minor crime. Taking all of that together, in addition to the fact that he's a major presidential candidate, it's just not going to lead the judge to incarcerate him.
There's a punishment here that would be appropriate, that would serve its purpose relative to the crime, that is not incarceration. So the type of punishment that we're more likely to see, I think, is something like probation, fines, community service, but not incarceration.
Okay, so we can't brace for that. The sentencing is scheduled for July the 11th. That's just four days before Donald Trump is set for his coronation at the Republican National Convention. So that timing is right in there. Just give us the span of, I mean, you've said that you think it's probation, but let's say they really did throw the book at him.
What is the maximum sentence he could get for this crime? What's the minimum? Just give us the ballpark, even though you've explained why you don't think he's bound for jail.
Well, he could face up to four years in prison on each of these counts. Experts I've spoken with have said it's unlikely that he would have to serve all of those sequentially. Instead, if there was a term of incarceration, the judge would likely put it all concurrently. So, you know, theoretically, up to four years for each of the 34 counts.
He has said, I think, straight away that he's going to appeal this. But this was a rigged decision right from day one, with a conflicted judge who should have never been allowed to try this case, never. And we will fight for our constitution.
This is long from over. Thank you very much.
When does that work? What's the timing, the sequencing of that? And could he, even, by lodging an appeal, delay sentencing altogether, so that this thing remains in limbo?
There are a number of legal maneuvers Trump can deploy to put off sentencing while he appeals. And he's likely to appeal immediately. And he will likely use the appellate process as long as he can. And I think what we're likely to see is that Trump will ask the judge to suspend execution of the sentence, stay execution of the sentence while an appeal is pending. And that's not an unreasonable request, is what experts I've talked to have said.
They've said that because any punishment is likely to be shorter than the appellate process, it wouldn't be unreasonable for a judge to say, we're going to hold off on implementing a sentence while your appeal proceeds.
Yeah, and it certainly wouldn't surprise anyone. He's managed to run out the clock with his three other cases, managing to pump them into the world after November, the 5th. With almost all those other cases, nothing is going to happen till after the election. So if he managed to kick that out. But the point is, the conviction still stands until it is, if it ever is, overturned.
So he remains right now a convicted criminal. In a way, the core question is, what does this do for his campaign? In the primaries, a lot of people said it helped him because it rallied Republicans around him. He was able to say he was the victim of a system that was out to get them, the Republican voters. He was just in the way, that kind of thing.
Now we're in a general election. It's him versus Joe Biden. Does it help him or hurt him?
Well, I think that remains to be seen. And a lot of Trump supporters who me and my colleagues have interviewed have said that this only strengthens their support of him. That Trump has successfully made this about Democrats coming after him.
Make no mistake about it, I'm here because of crooked Joe Biden.
The worst president in the history of our country is destroying our country. Trump made it seem like they are going out of their way to launch a political persecution. And I think a lot of people believe him on that argument. But, you know, now the fact that you have a major presidential candidate convicted on every single count that he was charged with. You know, the jury did not have to come back and find him guilty on every single count.
But they did. We'll see if that changes some people's minds. You know, what we've seen from Trump, though, is a relentless attack on all of the systems that are behind this case, the prosecutor, the judge. He's continued to attack them, to say that they're all corrupt. And I think the goal of that is to send a message to his supporters that they should continue to support him.
It's permissible to continue to support him, because this whole prosecution is rigged. And we'll see if they continue to believe that.
He prepared the ground for this verdict from day one, saying it was a rigged process. They couldn't trust it. The judge and everyone else was biased against him. And that obviously, as you say, worked with his own supporters. The question now is whether the rest of the American public go along with that.
And I've been noticing those figures even in the primaries that have continued rolling on. 10, 12, 18, 20 percent in some places voting for Nikki Haley months after she dropped out of the campaign. A lot of experts say that vote, that dissenting Republican vote, still backing a candidate who's not even there, that suggests there is a body of Republicans who are really queasy about voting for Trump because of these character questions. Those will now crystallise. And in a tight election like this, even if in the end it comes down to just three or four percent of the electorate who cannot bring themselves to vote for a convicted criminal, that is huge, isn't it, against Donald Trump and potentially for Joe Biden?
That's right. We know that this is going to be a very close election. And so anything that could persuade or dissuade voters could wind up mattering a great deal.
Yeah. And we've got some reactions coming in as you and I are speaking. Speaker of the House. Mike Johnson, Republican, obviously saying this is a shameful day in American history. Donald Trump playing the martyr, playing the victim, as always, calling himself a political prisoner.
We now know what the Republican case is going to be, that this was a kangaroo court. It can't be trusted. Big question is whether the public, as we were saying, buy that. But I'm interested what you make of this. Joe Biden's response to the verdict, instead of dwelling on this, focusing on the November election and saying there's only one way to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office, at the ballot box.
Does that suggest to you that he is, in a way, uncomfortable, going on the criminal aspect of his opponent because he worries about the backlash it can prompt from his supporters and instead wants to make sure that people focus on this as if, in some ways, it was a regular election, and keep their eyes on November?
Well, I'm not sure there's any incentive for Biden to really link himself to this prosecution. If he did that, I think it would only lend fuel to Trump's argument that Biden is somehow behind this, even though he's not. This is a New York State prosecution, totally separate from the federal system. And I think that what we'll see is Biden continue to sort of gesture to this conviction without directly linking himself to it, making it about character, about trustworthiness. I don't think that we're going to see Biden relying super heavily on this prosecution.
No, I think you're completely right. In a way, he doesn't need to, because the facts speak for themselves. But also that very good point you make, he doesn't want to in any way play into those accusations that somehow this was driven politically by the Biden White House. That's one of the claims. Donald Trump hasn't given up.
One of the things he talked about in his speech straightaway was he had a go at illegal immigrants. Donald Trump is not going to be stopped by this verdict. He continues his campaign. I'm sure you're not a betting man, Sam, but if I pushed you on it, do you think this is the game changer in the 2024 election?
I'm not sure that it is. I'm not sure that this case is really about the election. I think that a lot of people have made up their mind about Trump already, and there's not much in this case that's going to change that. I think what this case is more about is sending a message that no one is above the law. It doesn't matter if you're a presidential candidate or if you're Donald Trump, that everyone has to play by the same rules and is subject to the same legal system, is subject to the same criminal system.
And I think that the system has sent a very strong message that that still holds in the United States.
I think that's right. And the Biden-Harris campaign, as we've been speaking, have been saying this verdict shows indeed that no one is above the law. Donald Trump saying the verdict was rigged. He can't say the jury was rigged. He and his team had every chance to vet that jury.
You will remember jury selection took weeks and weeks and weeks as they turfed off the provisional jury. Anybody who had any kind of biases. So that is a hard case for them to make. But they will make it on a dramatic night in American politics. Sam Levine, thanks so much for talking to me for Politics Weekly America.
Thanks, Johnny. My pleasure.
And that's all from me for this week. Before I go, I just wanted to point you in the direction of our sister podcast, Politics Weekly UK, on top of keeping us all up to date on the highs and lows of the current election campaign. On Thursday's episode, my colleague John Harris did a deep dive into why the Rwanda policy that the Conservatives are so keen to promote is not really fit for purpose. He also speaks to one of the many vulnerable people seeking asylum here, who's found themselves caught up in the mess. So do make sure to listen to that wherever you get your podcasts.
And after that, if you have time to rate and review our podcast, I would be extremely grateful. But for now, it's goodbye. The producer is Daniel Stevens, the executive producer this week, Phil Maynard. Thanks, as always, for listening.
This is The Guardian.
The Guardian.
Whether you know your kimchi from your kefir, or it's your first time boiling an egg, you'll be able to make delicious meals easily with The Guardian's new Feast App. Discover vibrant vegan dishes with me, Mira Soda, hearty comfort foods with Nigel Slater, bold flavours with Yota Motelengi, and many more tasty offerings from expert Guardian cooks. Experience the ultimate cooking app, Feast, today. Download now and enjoy a 14-day free trial. Terms and conditions apply.
v1.0.0.241120-1_os