Twelve New York jurors set the Good Ship USA adrift on uncharted waters in a troubled political sea.
They had no choice. They were chosen from nearly 200 Manhattanites and forced to listen to weeks of complex and at times lurid testimony while fully aware that the entire world awaited their decision.
And after carefully weighing all the evidence they delivered their verdict: Guilty in the first degree on all 34 felony charges. Now the real trial begins – the political trial with the verdict coming – as Trump has said – on November the fifth.
Because of the totally unprecedented nature of this election it is impossible to predict the voters’ verdict and the impact of the New York trial. Socialist Eugene V. Debs ran for president from a prison cell in 1920, but never before has a convicted felon been the candidate of a major political party and not since 1860 has America been so politically polarised.
Eric Trump Jr declared after the trial that May 30 will go down in history as the day that Donald Trump won the 2024 election. Antony Scaramucci, former Trump Communications Director, said it will be noted as the day he lost it.
The country appears hopelessly divided. On one side of the political equation is those who argue that May 30th was an historic moment in which the US showed the world that no one is above the law. And on the other, that an American president is prepared to use the law to attempt to destroy their political opponent.
Going into the final day of the trial, the opinion polls put Joe Biden and Donald Trump neck and neck. An NPR/PBS poll conducted a week before the verdict reported that two-thirds of those polled said a guilty verdict would have no impact on how they voted in November. Three quarters said that a not guilty verdict would have no impact on the ballot.
Exit polls taken in Republican primaries in selected states indicated that between 15 and 30 percent of those who supported Trump in the primaries would “consider” not voting him if he ran as a convicted felon.
But all those polls were taken before the verdict of guilty was delivered by 12 grim-visaged jurors on all 34 felony charges. It was after a visibly angry Trump denounced the judge as “corrupt” and “conflicted” and the trial as a “politically motivated attack by the Biden Administration.”
It was before Tech entrepreneur Shaun Maguire – who supported Hillary Clinton in 2016 – donated $300,000 to the Trump campaign in the trial’s aftermath because “I believe the justice system is being weaponised against him (Donald Trump).”
Trump has consistently portrayed himself as the hero of the anti-establishment movement. And no institution is more closely associated with the American establishment then the legal establishment. On the other side, Trump is viewed as a wannabe autocrat prepared who is above the law and dismissive of the constitution.
The bones of how Donald Trump will use the New York verdict are clear. Trump will point to it as proof that he stands between the American public and a tyrannical establishment prepared to twist the law to achieve its political ends. That has been his playbook to date and, so far, it has been reasonably successful.
President Biden’s strategy appears more low-key and inclined to let the verdict speak for itself. Up until the end of the trial, the president’s only reference to Trump’s troubles was a thinly veiled barb about “Stormy weather.” He was silent immediately after the verdict and Ian Sams, spokesperson for the White House Counsel’s Office, would only say: “We respect the rule of law and have no additional comment.”
Vice President Kamala Harris, however, said that President Biden would find it difficult not to reference the verdict when Trump and Biden meet for their first presidential debate on 27 June.
The one certainty from the trial is that it has further polarised American politics and this will likely lead to the realisation of what is at stake in November and renewed energy among committed supporters on both sides.
* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and author of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “America Made in Britain". To subscribe to his email alerts on world affairs click here.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Proof that Bluesky is primmer than the Victorians
Failed State: why our government is broken and how to fix it
Unease grows within Labour ranks
Digital Skills Training for people over 65
Nonconformistradical
Mark
Jennie
Robin AG Bennett
Peter Davies
8 Comments
Might the decision to allow the use of American weapons to directly attack « Mother Russia » have consequences too, perhaps directly affecting that part of America which is 55 miles from Russia?
@Steve … In a word Steve – No.
Presumably American weapons would be used against sites that launch missiles/drones/aircraft against “Ukraine”, not against “Mother Russia”.
While it is highly likely that Trump’s conviction will be overturned on appeal, this may not happen until after the November election. If Trump fails to be re-elected by a narrow margin, the Democrat tactic of bringing charges against Trump to trial 6 months before the election, in front of a hand-picked judge who had personally donated to the Democrats and has a daughter who fund-raises for the Democrats, may well have provided decisive. Expect Republican DA’s in Republican states to adopt the tactics and construct ‘novel’ charges against Democrats in the years ahead.
Should efforts be concentrated on the state of the country? I am not a very exciting person but I care about the about the fate of other’s.
I personally find this heartbreaking.
@Mary Fulton – I think you have been paying too much attention to faux news being put out by “supersharers” on social networks.
A key lesson to be learnt from the US and Trumps’ encounters with the US legal system, is that having politicians appointing people to another part of the tripartite system of government isn’t a good idea.
>”has a daughter who fund-raises for the Democrats”
BTW, my daughter is an adult; whilst she may decide to do things I disagree with, she is an independent person who makes her own decisions ie. I do not control her life.
@Roland
Hi Roland, I followed this case closely and realised Trump was likely to be convicted as soon as the judge ruled that the jury didn’t have to agree unanimously which secondly crime Trump was seeking to commit so long as they agreed he had been falsifying his accounts by recording payments to a lawyer as ‘legal expenses’. This judge’s ruling goes against Supreme Court precedent that unanimity is also required for the secondary crime – the reason I believe an appeal will be successful.
I’m afraid I believe the judge would have know of the precedent when he decided to give his ruling so I can only conclude his political bias is the explanation.
Democracy ultimately depends on trusting the people to do the right thing. This would be helped if there was more education about it throughout our lives. Democratic debate depends on listening to the other side or both sides and coming to a decision without allowing that decision to alter you view of those who articulate it. Separating the view from the articulator of the view is something missing from our public arena.