Felony charges and political ambitions: Donald Trump at the legal and electoral crossroads

Donald Trump became the USA’s first former president to face felony charges. A New York jury convicted him guilty of falsifying company records to sway the 2016 election by paying hush money to a porn star who claimed they had a sexual relationship. Felony is a serious crime, typically involving violence and is more severe than misdemeanours—including murder, rape, armed robbery and serious drug offences. It is punishable by more than a year in prison.

Following a 9.5-hour deliberation, the jury found Trump guilty of all 34 charges. When the verdict was announced, he sat in court without showing any emotion, looking down. The conviction is a significant legal setback for Trump and may result in prison time. It is especially noteworthy in a city where his use of the tabloid press propelled him from real estate billionaire to reality TV celebrity and, eventually, president.

As Trump stands for president again in this year’s election, the ruling forces people to evaluate if they are willing to ignore his problematic conduct. Trump is expected to appeal against the ruling shortly. As a convicted felon, he will face a difficult situation while trying to resume his campaign.

There are no campaign rallies scheduled at this moment, however. Trump is likely to conduct fundraisers next week. It could take several months for judge Juan Merchan, who presided over the case, to decide if Trump should face prison time.

Accusations of falsifying corporation records attract a possible four-year jail sentence. However, prosecutors have not declared whether they will seek imprisonment and it is uncertain if the judge, who has previously warned of jail time for violating gag orders—legal restrictions that prevent individuals involved in a case from publicly discussing certain details to ensure a fair trial—will impose such a sentence even if requested.

Trump’s conviction and, potentially, jail time will not stop him from running for president. Trump is facing three more criminal charges, but the New York case could be the only one resolved before the November election, making the outcome especially critical. While the legal and historical impact of the verdict is obvious, its political effects are less clear. The verdict may strengthen people’s existing views about Trump instead of changing them.

A criminal conviction may put an end to most candidates’ presidential campaigns. However, Trump’s political career has survived two impeachments, sexual assault charges, investigations into ties with Russia, attempts to overturn an election and a controversy involving a recording in which he bragged about grabbing women’s genitals.

Additionally, voters have known about the allegations in this case for years. Although scandalous, these allegations are considered less serious compared to the other three cases, where he is accused of undermining American democracy and mishandling national security secrets.

Even so, the decision is likely to give President Joe Biden and the Democrats a chance to argue that Trump is not suitable for office. At the same time, it gives Trump—the likely Republican nominee—more material to claim that he is being unfairly targeted by a politically biased justice system.

Throughout the trial, Trump insisted he had done nothing wrong and that the case was unjustified. He criticised the trial from inside the courthouse, accompanied by prominent Republican supporters and received fines for making inflammatory comments about witnesses outside of court, violating a gag order.

The first criminal trial of a former US president was always going to be a unique difficulty for the legal system, given Trump’s high profile and constant rhetorical attacks on the case and its participants. However, the 12-person jury’s decision rejected Trump’s attempts to undercut, or manipulate, the trial through ‘Grand Old Party’ (GOP)—a nickname for the Republican Party in the US—support gestures.

The trial lasted four weeks and featured some dramatic testimony, addressing a well-known aspect of Trump’s past. During his 2016 campaign, Trump faced risks from the publication of an ‘Access Hollywood’ tape in which he discussed grabbing women without their consent, as well as the possibility of further negative stories about his sexual behaviour emerging.

Trump has denied the affair and his lawyers argue that his popularity, particularly during the 2016 campaign, made him a target for blackmail. They contended that hush money transactions to suppress unwanted news were motivated by personal concerns, such as protecting his family’s and business reputation, rather than political considerations.

They also attempted to undercut Cohen, the prosecution’s main witness, arguing his testimony was motivated by personal animosity towards Trump, as well as a desire for popularity and money. Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to criminal charges related to the payments. When Cohen was paid back, the transactions were listed as legal expenses. Prosecutors argue this was an illegal way to hide the real reason for the payments. Trump’s lawyers claim the payments were genuinely for legal services.

Trump did not testify, but jurors heard a hidden audio of him and Cohen discussing a $150,000 hush money payment to Karen McDougal, a Playboy model who claimed to have had an affair with Trump. Cohen’s recording shows Trump asking, “What do we have to pay for this? One-fifty?”

Jurors also heard from Keith Davidson, the lawyer who arranged the hush money payments for Daniels and McDougal. He described the tense negotiations to secure payments for both women to keep quiet. However, a Trump attorney aggressively questioned Davidson, pointing out that he had handled similar hush money deals for other high-profile individuals.

Daniels testified, detailing the sexual encounter she claimed had occurred in a hotel suite during a Lake Tahoe golf tournament. David Pecker, former publisher of the National Enquirer, also testified, outlining how he helped prevent negative reports about Trump’s campaign from getting published, including purchasing McDougal’s story.

However, the most crucial witness was Cohen, who spent several days testifying. He provided jurors with an insider’s perspective on the hush money scheme and claimed that Trump was fully aware of it. Cohen quoted Trump as saying, “Just take care of it”, at one point of time.

Cohen gave jurors the clearest link between Trump and the accusations. He reported a meeting with Trump and the Trump Organization’s senior finance officer, during which they agreed to reimburse Cohen in monthly instalments for legal services.

Cohen also spoke openly about his split from Trump in 2018, when he chose to cooperate with prosecutors after serving as Trump’s personal fixer for a decade. He stated before the court, “In order to stay loyal and do what he asked, I went against my moral principles, and both my family and I have paid the price.”

The outcome supports Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg’s claim that the case was about electoral meddling rather than hush money. He defended it against critics who argued that it was the weakest of the four cases against Trump. The case gained prominence since it was the first to go to trial and could be the only one to reach a jury before the election.

The remaining three cases—local and federal charges in Atlanta and Washington for allegedly attempting to change the 2020 election, as well as a federal indictment in Florida for illegally maintaining top-secret records—are being delayed due to legal concerns or appeals.

(The author of this article is a Defence, Aerospace & Political Analyst based in Bengaluru. He is also Director of ADD Engineering Components, India, Pvt. Ltd, a subsidiary of ADD Engineering GmbH, Germany. You can reach him at: girishlinganna@gmail.com)

(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own and do not reflect those of DNA)