Today marks the beginning of former President Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial, the first of his four impending trials (and 34 felony counts), and a historic move by the courts. Never before has a former US President been indicted on account of criminal activity, and this particular piece of criminal activity is especially unbecoming. The charges involved in this trial, from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, can be traced back to the $130,000 dollars former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen paid adult film actress Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about an alleged affair between her and the former president, around the end of the 2016 election. While this in itself is certainly an icky situation, the hush money aspect isn't necessarily illegal. The illegal portion happens to be that Trump repaid Cohen in installments that were marked as "legal fees" in his company's records, which is considered as fraud. Especially considering that these payments were made around the time of the 2016 election, it stands to reason that the DOJ would consider paying of Daniels to have been an attempt "to influence the 2016 presidential election" by concealing the potentially nasty secret of an affair.
The former President didn't take this all lying down, of course, as he vehemently denied all of the allegations presented and maintained that he should have some level of immunity as a former president. This has been a common thread with many of his criminal proceedings, as he has consistently argued that his former position of power in the US exempts him from being indicted on account of his various criminal activities. This was especially true in terms of the felony counts of him obtaining classified government documents from his time in office and stowing them away in an unprotected location (i.e. a bathroom in Mar-a-Lago). Trump's lawyers' main argument was that the Presidential Records Act (PRA) allowed the president to have possession of these documents, but this has been highly contested by the public and the courts.
The trial kicked off today with the choosing of potential jurors and individual jury questioning. This was a rather contentious situation, as many jurors were excused right away for their admitted inability to be impartial in the proceedings. Judge Juan Merchan maintained that jurors should try their best to be impartial, regardless of their political affiliation, and urged jurors to consider whether they would act the same way if they were of the same political party of the president. Meanwhile, the Trump Media stock price has plummeted more than 18% after the company sold millions of additional shares, clearly gearing up for the plethora of fines they're about to incur from Trump's criminal endeavors.
All in all, it is unclear as to whether this trial will really amount to much, but given the general scandalousness of this situation, it is safe to say that this may sway Trump's base a bit, as it would be controversial to be in support of a convicted felon (if it comes to that). However, the gravity of this situation in the long term is ambiguous for now, and whether this trial will effect his chances of snagging a second tenure of president remains to be seen.
Sources:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/04/15/donald-trump-trial-new-york-live-updates/73308381007/
https://www.axios.com/2024/03/25/trump-new-york-hush-money-criminal-trial
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/live-blog/trump-hush-money-trial-stormy-daniels-michael-cohen-live-updates-rcna145934
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/14/trump-documents-presidential-records-act/
11 comments:
His trial will no doubt be extremely polarizing. I've already seen something from a MAGA dude imploring people being considered for the jury to do whatever they can to get on the jury and then refuse to convict (resulting in a “hung jury”)- all in the name of patriotism.
Possible hot take: I think it is kinda interesting to think about what would have happened if Trump hadn't been president. As much as we would like to believe law and justice always prevail, I do think that if he hadn't been president, Trump would have gotten away scot-free with all of his (for now alleged) crimes. There are probably many others who have committed similar crimes to what Trump has been accused for, but are simply not being paid attention to as much because they are out of the public eye. Understandably, law enforcement is spread thin and as a public bureaucracy has to grapple with many rules and regulations that impact its productivity.
I think throughout these trials, we are constantly reminded that despite having been president, Trump is, at heart, a professional spoiled rich kid and reality TV show star. It is not surprising that a fraud conviction like this would come up, as they are not uncommon for those of Trump's ilk. If Trump had remained the real-estate investor/celebrity he had been prior to politics, this case would've likely left the 24-hr news cycle rather quickly, and Trump would've moved on with a slightly worse reputation. However, the danger here is that Trump is trying to frame what seems to be legitimate fraud allegations as some sort of "political persecution." The problem with that argument is that "political persecution" is a very real and dangerous thing, but that is not at all what is happening, and by comparing himself to those like Mandela, Trump is seriously misrepresenting what is happening in his trial to his base; he's quite literally lying. Fraud on this scale is fraud regardless of whether or not Trump disagrees ideologically with the AG or the president.
It's interesting how trump believes his claim that he should be immune to certain crimes as a "former" and not even current president should keep him safe from justice. It is totally unequal and unfair that a person in a position of power should be exempt from certain law, and Trumps resistance to his seeing the truth make it clear that he has a very different understanding of Democracy in America then most of the country. Time and again it seems he avoids responsibility for his actions, makes no effort to change his fraudulent behavior, and someone continues to inspire his followers even more. I hope he doesn't set a strong precedent that presidents are allowed to be criminals and never pay for their actions. I'm also confused why the lawyers would list the hush money as "legal fees"- would the benefit be a tax write off?
I'm not sure why Trump clings to the belief that his status a previous president should shield him from certain legal repercussions even when current presidents may be removed form office through impeachment. The notion of immunity for someone in a position of power is unjust, a stark disparity in the application of the law. Repeatedly evading accountability and exhibiting no inclination to rectify his deceptive conduct, he continues to galvanize his supporters. It's concerning that he might establish a dangerous precedent where presidents can act unlawfully without consequence. Trump's denial of reality underscores his divergent interpretation of American democracy compared to the majority.
I think it's funny how Trump is basically saying "Hey I didn't do it, but even if I did, I should be able to get away with it, because I was president at one point." I found this idea a bit similar to presidential pardoning, where the president can erase someone of their past crimes and let them free. However, I feel like if a president did that it would have to be backed by a lot of good reasoning and the support of the public and Congress. But in this case, trying to self-pardon seems to be a very controversial move, and I wouldn't be surprised if by doing this, many Republicans end up retracting their vote because it's too powerful.
Trump's calls for presidential immunity feels really similar to Nixon's during the Watergate scandal (which as history proves didn't work out for him). Not only does it make him seem entitled, but a little foolish that he's trying a strategy that's already been proven to fail. But one interesting strategy he does take is using the Judge's unwillingness to rule on allowing Trump's presence at his son's high school graduation and painting a picture of a biased judge separating a father and son. With his strong fan base, I'm curious to see how the public react and how that will ultimately impact the Judge's ruling in both Trump's attendance and the overall case. And would the extreme situation be possible-- the Judge is painted as so bias they will have to replace him? or even call a mistrial??
Beyond the hush money and payoffs to Stormy Daniels, I believe Trump is also being accused of a larger attempt to influence the election by buying damaging stories about himself to prevent them from reaching the public -- there has been mention about other attempts to conceal other crimes.
Besides this trial, which is already polarizing enough (the difficulty finding a jury being just one example), I thought it was interesting, and unfortunate, that this could possibly be the only one of the four cases against Trump to go to trial before Election Day, considering it's probably one of the weaker cases.
https://www.nytimes.com/article/donald-trump-trial-what-to-know.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Though Trump's potential conviction will be controversial, I don't believe that it will sway his voter base. This man literally tried to overthrow the US government like 4 years ago. Anyone not swayed by that will find little reason to see Trump being convicted as a felon as something to be dissuaded by. In fact, this can energize his voter base instead, as Satvik pointed out, painting a false narrative of political persecution that can actually boost his chances of becoming president. But the fact that being immune from certain civil charges by holding a role that takes great responsibility makes this whole thing quite baffling. Even more so when he is able to pardon himself by being president again.
I remember reading an article about the partiality of Trump's jurors and how this will inevitably take a large role in influencing the outcome of his trial. If I remember correctly, around half of the 96 jurors asked excused themselves when asked if they could be impartial in the trial. Then, in a video I watched later, the interviewer asked New Yorkers if they believed that Trump could ever have an impartial trial, whether it be New York or somewhere else. In my opinion, there is virtually no place where educated citizens of America could partake in a trial with Donald Trump in the center of it and have the trial be impartial. Even if it isn't overt, it could even be the slightest prejudices and implicit biases for or against him. But that's just the way it is going to work, regardless of his location; it's all a part of the job description.
I don't get why trump thinks being a former president should protect him from legal consequences, especially since sitting presidents can be impeached and removed from office. The idea that someone in power gets immunity just isn’t right—it's a clear misuse of the law. Trump keeps dodging responsibility and shows no signs of changing his misleading ways, yet he still manages to rally his supporters. It’s worrisome; he could set a risky precedent that presidents can break the law without facing any repercussions. His refusal to face reality really shows how differently he views American democracy compared to most people.
I'm interested in the effects that these trials will have on the upcoming presidential election. In class we've learned that a big determinant of whether or not Americans will vote for candidates is if they view those candidates as "good" people or not--people who display positive moral characteristics. Thus, scandals such as these, in which Trump literally paid someone hush money to keep them quiet over an affair, would seem to be yet another sign that people may begin distrusting Trump, and won't vote for him.
But then again, perhaps these trials are just going to make Trump supporters even more adamant in supporting him. I think the general sense that I get from seeing conservative comments on social media is that all these trials are calculated attempts at defaming Trump, so seeing him in court almost makes him some kind of martyr. I guess we will just have to wait and see what the results of the election will be.
Post a Comment