![\"Protesters,](\"https:\/\/d2eehagpk5cl65.cloudfront.net\/img\/c800x450-w800-q60\/uploads\/2024\/05\/sipaphotosnineteen417952-800x450.jpg\")
<\/picture> <\/div>\nGuilty on all counts:<\/strong> Last night, a jury found<\/a> former President Donald Trump guilty on all 34 counts. He was convicted of falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels, with whom he had a tryst, in the lead-up to the 2016 election.<\/p>\n Sentencing, which may include prison time but does not necessarily, has been set for July 11. Trump still has appeals to exhaust, and Judge Juan M. Merchan could also choose to seek probation instead of throwing the presidential candidate in the slammer. In other words: There are a lot of different ways this could play out which would still allow Trump to campaign for president (and be elected).<\/p>\n Since this happened last night, we do not yet have polling data on how this verdict will affect the presidential race. But a recent Quinnipiac University poll<\/a> found that 6 percent of Trump voters would be less likely to vote for their favored candidate if convicted, while “24 percent say they would be more likely to vote for him” and an impressive “68 percent say it would not make a difference.” That 6 percent could be consequential in a tight race.<\/p>\n Critics on the left, many of whom are hungry for Trump to receive jail time, and those on the right who are willing to excuse his criminal and norms-shattering behavior time and time again are both frequently wrong, but in this particular case, the legal argument was mighty dubious, writes<\/a>\u00a0Reason<\/em>‘s Jacob Sullum, and the verdict was perhaps reached too swiftly, providing fodder for the argument that this was politically motivated.<\/p>\n “In legal terms, the quick verdict is hard to fathom,” writes Sullum. “That’s not because there were so many counts to consider, each related to a specific invoice, check, or ledger entry allegedly aimed at disguising a hush-money reimbursement as payment for legal services. Once jurors accepted the prosecution’s theory of the case, it was pretty much inevitable that they would find Trump guilty on all 34 counts. But that\u00a0theory<\/a> was complicated, confusing, and in some versions highly implausible, if not nonsensical.”<\/p>\n The basics: <\/strong>One of the prosecution’s basic arguments was that Trump falsified business records with “an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” That other\u00a0<\/em>crime would be a violation of Section 17-152<\/a>, a New York state election law that considers it a misdemeanor for “two or more persons” to “conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”<\/p>\n But Judge Merchan told jurors they did not have to agree on what “unlawful means” were used, or what that even means, to reach a unanimous verdict. And prosecutors needed to convince jurors that Trump “knowingly and willfully” engaged in such criminal conspiracy with his fixer, Michael Cohen, which strains credulity: One argument, put forth by prosecutors, was that Cohen “made an excessive campaign contribution, thereby violating the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), when he fronted the money to pay Daniels” (per Sullum<\/a>)\u2014an offense Cohen pleaded guilty to several years ago and a piece of evidence jurors heard but were instructed to use “to assess Cohen’s credibility” but not his guilt\u2014but it is in fact quite plausible that Trump did not know that instructing Cohen to pay Daniels was illegal.<\/p>\n “The prosecutors zapped a dead misdemeanor back into life by claiming a violation under New York’s election law 17-152,” writes<\/a>\u00a0Jonathan Turley at The Hill. <\/em>“The argument is that the crime was committed to further another crime as an unlawful means to influence the election. However, that other crime can be the falsification of business records. So the jury (or some jurors, at least) could find that some documents were falsified as an unlawful means of falsifying other documents.”<\/p>\n HOODWINKED: <\/strong>It’s all legally shaky, but that didn’t stop prosecutors from making wild arguments (as they do), like one that the hush-money payment<\/a> (also called “[an] effort to hoodwink the American voter”) “could very well be what got President Trump elected” in 2016, and that the cover-up of the Daniels affair amounted to<\/a> “a subversion of democracy” meant to “manipulate and defraud the voters.”<\/p>\n The payment to Daniels “turned out to be one of the most valuable contributions anyone ever made to Trump,” Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass argued<\/a> at one point. But, ultimately, jurors were convinced by these arguments\u2014even if much of the conservative legal movement and punditry (even those who aren’t Trump fans) were not.<\/p>\n As far as appeals, Trump has plenty of “material to work with” writes<\/a> Ankush Khardori at Politico. <\/em>“What he’s got has almost nothing to do with the salacious and supposedly extraneous details offered by Daniels about her sexual encounter with Trump\u2014after all, Trump and his legal team foolishly invited that testimony themselves by denying its existence\u2014but with the underlying legal architecture<\/a> of the case, which imported complex principles of federal election law into a state law case about false business records.”<\/p>\n Scenes from New York:\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>That’s enough New York for today.<\/p>\n
\n
\nQUICK HITS<\/h2>\n
\n