Now that Donald Trump has been convicted of all 34 felonies in the weakest criminal case against a former president, imagine what would have happened if the other cases, particularly the two federal indictments, had been allowed to go to trial before the election.
If this system worked the way it should, voters would have been faced with the possibility of electing someone who had been convicted of a variety of crimes in three separate indictments, and I would assume that the evidence in a federal trial would be so strong that a conviction would result.
It's still theoretically possible, but it's looking less likely by the day. In Florida, Trump appointee Judge Eileen M. Cannon, who is presiding over the Mar-a-Lago classified documents and obstruction of justice cases, is doing everything in her power to stall the proceedings. In federal district court, Obama appointee Tanya S. Chutkan is trying to take the case to trial, but is being delayed by a Supreme Court that appears to ignore the election calendar. (Georgia's sweeping RICO case against Trump has its own problems, but even setting those aside, it was unlikely to go to trial before November.)
So what we are left with is a guilty verdict in New York, and the sobering fact that, unless overturned on appeal, Trump is a felon. That is firm. On all charges. This was not a split verdict. It was a devastating conclusion, reached swiftly but after clearly serious consideration of the evidence.
This follows a civil jury that convicted Trump of sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll in 2023, and another that awarded him more than $83 million in damages for defaming her earlier this year. A New York judge also awarded Trump more than $355 million in damages for misleading lenders and insurers about Trump's assets. Is this the man voters might re-elect as president?
And this case, unlike others that have gone to trial, has nothing to do with Trump's character or business ethics — rather, as prosecutors argued and the jury found, it centers on Trump's desperate efforts to prevent information about his relationship with porn star Stormy Daniels from becoming public before the 2016 election.
I write this as someone who has been skeptical of the hush money lawsuit from the start, but that's not because the efforts to cover up Trump's sexual misconduct allegations weren't seriously problematic — they were. The $130,000 payment brokered by Michael Cohen and approved by Trump meant that voters were deprived of information that Trump understood could be politically devastating.
My concern is that New York prosecutors are trying to shoehorn these ugly facts into the fabric of the state's falsifying business records statute. In that regard, it's important to remember that convictions can be overturned on appeal, as evidenced by the New York Supreme Court's recent decision to overturn the conviction of film producer Harvey Weinstein.
A potential issue is that under New York law, falsifying business records is a misdemeanor. If the falsification is done with the intent to commit another crime, the charge can be elevated to a felony. Ultimately, as the judge instructed the jury, the prosecution settled on another New York misdemeanor: a state election law that makes it illegal to “conspirate to promote or obstruct the election of any person to public office by unlawful means.” The unlawful means they cited include violating federal election laws and filing false tax records. Does New York law extend up to federal crimes, allowing a self-initiated entry into such felony conduct? Was there sufficient evidence that Trump intended to violate election and tax laws (assuming they apply here)? On another topic, did the judge err in allowing Daniels to testify in detail about her alleged sexual relationship with Trump?
Of course, overturning a conviction is always an uphill battle, and the appeals court decision will be handed down after the presidential election. For now, while Trump rails against a criminal justice system he claims was rigged against him, the jury's verdict should be respected, virtually and almost decisively in fact.
Only this committee has heard the evidence against Trump. Only this committee can judge the credibility of witnesses like Cohen, Trump's alleged operative and perjurer. Only this committee can determine whether the facts support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
In particular, only an appeals court can decide what I considered the weakest point of the prosecution's case — whether Trump knew that the business records detailing the hush money payments as “legal expenses” or “fees” were falsified for the purpose of committing another crime — and it is not the appellate court's job to review evidence.
And there is no reason to doubt these findings. Judge Juan Melchán presided over the trial with commendable impartiality and restraint. The jury was selected with the input and consent of the defense as well as the prosecution.
Regardless of the political leanings of Manhattan residents, there is no reason to think the trial cannot be fairly adjudicated. Two of the jurors are lawyers; one of them said he gets his news exclusively from Trump's own Truth Social and Elon Musk's X. In questioning before jury selection, they did not seem particularly politically inclined, news-obsessed, or seized by strong feelings of support or opposition to Trump.
Was Trump's conviction inevitable? I don't think so. In fact, most of the lawyers I spoke to as the trial drew to a close said they were prepared for a unanimous jury. Trump's lawyer, Todd Blanche, slinged spaghetti in his closing argument, hoping that something, anything, might stick in the mind of at least one juror. Perhaps that was his greatest hope, but the stubborn, unrealistic nature of his arguments may have angered rather than persuaded jurors.
The defense might have fared better if they had allowed their difficult client to admit everything except the relationships, bribery and reimbursement schemes that led to the falsification of business records.
That would have allowed them to thoroughly underscore the lack of direct evidence that Trump knew about the false statements or committed other crimes in an attempt to defraud — not least the absence of testimony from Allen Weisselberg, the former chief financial officer of the Trump Organization — while Trump himself signed nine checks that falsely represented payments to Cohen as commission payments.
We'll never know. The jury has already spoken. There is ample evidence to support a verdict. Trump can complain. In fact, given the delays in other cases, he should be thankful he's not running as a 3-time convicted felon.
