Donald Trump, convicted felon. All roads in the life of the former President of the United States, a man who has long lived on the fringes of legality, who has played fast and loose with the truth for the duration of his personal, business and political life, led to that irrefutable judgment from a jury of peers in New York on Thursday. Guilty. Thirty-four times guilty.
Judge Juan Merchan brought the five-week trial to an end on Thursday by thanking the 12 New Yorkers who delivered the historic verdict after just eight hours of deliberation. “I wanted you to know that I really admire your dedication and your hard work.” He will sentence Mr Trump on July 11, his options ranging from the imposition of a community service order to incarceration. The defendant will appeal, of course, setting in motion a further legal process that could take at least another year, thus denying the world the spectacle - the Star-Spangled shame - of a 78-year-old convict campaigning for the Presidency from the inside of a prison cell.
Delay, delay, delay has been the defining purpose of Trump’s army of lawyers since the former President was first criminally charged in four jurisdictions last year, so by that twisted standard the outcome of the New York trial might still offer some kind of “strategic hope”. The President won’t be carted off to the Rikers Island clink. Not for at least a year. Let the ticker tape parade down Fifth Avenue commence! Or perhaps not.
In the aftermath of Thursday’s verdict, the Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg, who had lawyerly belief and political courage to indict Trump on charges of falsifying business records as part of a hush money scheme aimed at concealing details of an affair with porn actress Stormy Daniels from voters in the run-up to the 2016 Presidential election, spoke about the enduring strength of the American legal system and the people within it. “We did our job, which is to follow the facts and the law without fear or favour. And I feel gratitude to work alongside the phenomenal public servants who do that each and every day.”
Trump, who had marked time during his trial by abusing both DA Bragg and Judge Merchan, as well as members of their respective families, did not see things that way, of course. Moments after being convicted he stepped in the Manhattan late afternoon sunshine and reeled off his greatest hits of self-pity and judicial abuse. “This was a disgrace. A rigged trial. A judge who was corrupt. I didn’t do anything wrong. I am a very innocent person,’’ he said.
In truth the former President, who had fallen asleep in the dock countless times as his liberty was at stake, looked weary in defeat, as if bored by the sound of his own voice. But needless to say his loyal chorus of Republican lickspittles were on hand, led by Mike Johnson, the evangelical Christian leader of the Congress who has stayed mute on morality of a married President attempting to conceal an affair with a porn star but has never been found short of words when asked to defend Trump’s conduct.
“This is a shameful day in American history,’’ he began. “The decision today is further evidence that Democrats will stop at nothing to silence dissent and crush their political opponents.”
Johnson owes his elevated position in the American political hierarchy - the Speaker of the House is second in line to the Presidency - to Trump’s patronage so he could hardly be expected to point out that the body he leads has rules severely limiting the participation of any elected official who is found guilty of felony crimes. Instead, he railed against what he claimed was "the weaponization of our justice system by the Biden Administration”.
This was simply untrue.
Amid all the noise and bluster, it should not be forgotten that Alvin Bragg only brought his case against the former President to the State courts after the Biden administration’s Department of Justice declined to do so at the federal level, despite, as became evident during the trial, overwhelming evidence that Donald Trump had committed crimes.
In the circumstances, there was little the Biden campaign could add amid all the tumult beyond the terse observation that the news from New York showed that “no-one is above the law”. President Biden, conveniently, was on a brief holiday with family members when the verdict came down but he will be forced into public comment immediately on his return. Advisors are currently workshopping on exactly what he will say, although it is safe to say henceforth the name Donald Trump will never escape his lips without the prefix “convicted criminal”.
Thursday’s verdict will of course find a place in the history books but it had barely been delivered when attention turned to the impact it will have on November’s election. Will this damage or help Trump? As always in this deeply tribal country, answers were offered mostly on the basis of political affiliation. Team Trump, led by the president’s son Eric, insisted “May 30th, 2024 might be remembered as the day Donald J. Trump won the 2024 Presidential Election”. File that one under wishful thinking.
Read more:
Chaotic US university protests could hand Trump the presidency
Donald Trump trial: Dismissals, denials and the real truth
A recent poll by the respected Marist organisation is assuredly closer to the truth. It asked respondents if a guilty verdict would impact their voting intentions, with 65% of people saying it would not. Of the remaining 35%, 17% said they would be less likely to vote for a guilty Trump. Bafflingly, 15% of likely voters questioned said in the event of a guilty verdict they would be more likely to vote for the man with the matching orange jump suit and face bronzer.
That left 35 of respondents unaccounted for by Marist, presumably because, like the rest of the watching world, they were too stunned by the idea of a duly elected convicted criminal sitting in the Oval Office to answer the question.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel