It’s only been five days since a jury of Donald Trump’s peers in his longtime hometown of New York City convicted him of 34 felonies. But it’s already clear the guilty verdict — for an unlawful scheme, carried out in advance of and following the 2016 presidential election, to cover up a sexual affair with a woman who worked in the adult entertainment industry — will echo through history.
Here’s what we know and what we don’t: first, the unanimous jury found that Trump falsified his business records for the purpose of violating election laws and preventing the public from learning information that could have affected its judgment on Trump’s fitness for office. Second, we don’t yet know what Trump’s punishment will be (sentencing is set for July 11) — and needless to say, Trump disagrees with the verdict and will appeal it. Third, we do know that Trump could still win the 2024 election in spite of this verdict and that the public has heard only a fraction of the evidence relevant to voters’ choices concerning Trump’s many alleged crimes. In short, we don’t entirely know what this verdict means.
Still, there are larger reflections that are already clear. Here are four key takeaways from this first-ever criminal conviction of a former president, with the benefit of just enough hindsight.
Regardless of the verdict or the nature of the charge, it is important for democracy that former presidents be held accountable to the law in the same manner as anyone else.
The charges Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg brought in this case have been hotly debated by legal experts and others, several of whom question whether the actions Trump is alleged to have taken actually constitute felony crimes. But the reality is many regular New Yorkers have been charged with and convicted of falsifying business records with the intent to commit or conceal other crimes. And the prosecution presented a strong case that Trump did just that — one that a diligent jury of 12 found persuasive. Likewise, one purpose of our criminal justice system is to provide defendants a robust process for challenging the charges against them and holding the government to its burden of proof. Trump has received the full benefit of that process and will continue to do so as he appeals the verdict. And, finally, it is axiomatic in our democracy that no one is above the law — at least in theory.
As evidence of potentially criminal acts by Trump has mounted over the years, and especially following his failed coup attempt in January 2021, many have questioned whether this lofty principle was really true and whether any prosecutor anywhere would attempt to charge Trump with crimes. Trump himself has warned that violence and chaos would attend any effort to do so, and he has repeatedly attempted to stoke violence against and intimidate prosecutors, judges, court personnel, and potential jurors in the various cases in which he is charged.
With this trial and verdict, we have seen that prosecutors and judges can effectively stand up to Trump and that everyday citizens can sit before a former president and do their jobs as jurors — even in the face of his bullying. We have also seen that the public, including those who support Trump, can watch the trial unfold and process the news of the verdict without unrest resulting. In short, we have seen that a former president can be put on trial and that life for the rest of us, and the functions of our government, can go on.
This is essential because the true threat to democracy is not prosecuting a former president — it is failing to do so when the evidence warrants. Had Trump’s intimidation tactics prevented this process from going forward, it would have called the foundation of our democracy and the very rule of law into question. Even if the jury had acquitted Trump — or if he ultimately prevails on appeal — the completion of this process is a credit to all of the institutional actors and citizens whose efforts are necessary for democracy to function.
The attacks on our legal system by Trump and his allies are misplaced and dangerous.
With his relentless and dangerous attacks on the prosecutors, the trial judge, and the people of New York City who make up its jury pool, Trump has once again proven that his primary interest is in politicizing and destroying our democratic institutions, not taking care to uphold them. Throughout the trial, Trump and his allies have made disparaging comments about the racial and political composition of the jury and their capacity to be fair. They have likewise suggested that the trial judge is a Democratic partisan who works for Joe Biden (he does not) and even questioned whether he is a real American because he emigrated to this country from Colombia.
In reality, there is no reason to conclude that Trump did not receive a fair trial. All Trump needed to avoid conviction was to convince one juror that prosecutors had not proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. And what we know about the jurors suggests that they were anything but a collection of never-Trumpers. Several jurors expressed positive views about Trump and several identified decidedly non-liberal or non-traditional outlets — such as Truth Social, Tik Tok, and the New York Post — as sources from which they consume news.
Justice Juan Merchan, for his part, went out of his way (some would say too far) to avoid jailing Trump for his multiple violations of the Court’s gag order. He acknowledged that Trump was a former president and presidential candidate and that he did not want to be forced to jail him and keep him from campaigning. He also made key rulings that favored Trump, especially in an effort to limit Stormy Daniels’ testimony about the details of what happened between her and Trump at a golf club in Lake Tahoe, and in pretrial rulings that precluded prosecutors from telling jurors about certain prior sexual assault allegations against Trump.
Instead of defending himself within the system on the merits, Trump chose at every turn to denounce the system and attempt to destroy its legitimacy. Those are not the actions of a normal presidential candidate. Trump's summoning of high-ranking Republicans (including multiple Senators who are lawyers with ethical obligations, and the Speaker of House of Representatives) to New York to show him their fealty by attacking the judge (and his family) and the jury are additional disturbing signs that a significant portion of the Republican Party is now fully on board with Trump’s authoritarian agenda
This case underscored all that we know about Donald Trump’s disdain for women and for voters.
Stormy Daniels’ two days on the witness stand were notable for her description of Trump’s coercive maneuvers to convince her to have sex with him (although she adamantly asserted that she did ultimately consent). During cross-examination, Trump’s attorney insinuated that women like Ms. Daniels aren’t allowed to withhold their consent in response to sexual advances. All of this served as a reminder that one of Trump’s calling cards is his misogyny. Of course, another New York jury — in a civil case — recently found that Trump sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll in the dressing room of a Manhattan department store in 1995 or 1996. That jury also found that Trump defamed Ms. Carroll when he called her a liar, claimed he did not know her, and said she wasn’t his “type.” That verdict, in turn, recalls the 26 women who have accused Trump of sexual assault — a behavior he is heard proudly endorsing on the infamous Access Hollywood tape.
The trial also shed new light on Trump’s modus operandi of using his wealth and status to avoid accountability for his actions. The jury heard about Trump’s deal with the publisher of the National Enquirer to buy and conceal negative stories about Trump. And witnesses recounted his audacity in using the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office to sign fraudulent payments to Michael Cohen and White House staffers to facilitate his efforts — harbingers of future abuses of his office.
Trump didn’t want voters to know this information when they considered his candidacy in 2016, or now — but having it is their right.
The fact that this was Donald Trump’s first criminal trial is a failure of the federal judiciary to hold up its role in protecting democracy.
For all the reasons just discussed, the Manhattan trial was an important and revealing moment for the rule of law. But it should not have been the first trial of a former President of the United States. The federal election interference case against Trump was originally scheduled for trial in March and we should have had a verdict by now. The classified records trial in Florida was slated to begin on May 20. And now both of these proceedings are on indefinite hold. This is no fault of DA Bragg, who stood down in deference to the federal cases. Blame rests squarely in the hands of federal judges who have enabled the delays sought by Defendant Trump and damaged the credibility of the judicial branch in the process.
More than a month has now passed since the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Trump’s baseless claim to absolute immunity for his actions in seeking to overturn the results of a lawful election through fraud, obstruction, and violence. Legal scholars across the political spectrum have rejected the idea that any of these actions were part of the president’s official duties. They have also been confounded by Judge Aileen Cannon’s slow-walking of what appears to be an overwhelming case that Trump brazenly violated the Espionage Act. Recently, thanks to the unsealing of an opinion by Judge Beryl Howell — who oversaw the grand jury that charged Trump in the records case — we learned even more damning evidence of Trump’s intention to hold on to national secrets and store them in his Mar-a-Lago bedroom. We also saw the contrast between Howell’s expeditious and straightforward handling of the privilege issue before her and Cannon’s protracted deliberations.
Read: Tale of two Supreme Courts: speeding when it benefits Trump, delaying when it doesn’t
As all of these cases have shown, Trump has received the full benefit of the United States Constitution as he defends himself from criminal charges. On the other hand, he has promised to deprive Americans he views as enemies of those same rights. Prosecutors are trying to hold Trump accountable to the law (in fact, notwithstanding Trump’s claims that the Department of Justice is being weaponized against him, they are also busy enforcing the law against Democratic politicians and the President’s son) and state court judges and jurors are doing their part even in the face of Trump’s efforts to intimidate them.
It is time for the federal judiciary to step up and do the same, and for the public to insist they do so.