Former President Donald Trump walks outside the courtroom of his trial at Manhattan criminal court, Tuesday, April 30, 2024, in New York. (Curtis Means/Pool Photo via AP)
Like many others, my first reaction to Trump's conviction for election interference by falsifying business records was relief that he would finally be held accountable for at least some of his criminal behavior. More importantly, I was grateful that the judiciary was performing its duty. Despite many commentators' praise for the courts, I have found their performance mixed at best. Of course, some commentators may be reluctant to criticize the courts because of the attack being launched against them by groups opposed to democracy, like MAGA Republicans. While the federal courts have held January 6 terrorists to account, the Supreme Court, federal Judge Aileen Cannon, and Fulton County Scott McAfee have been disgraceful in granting delays and other favorable treatment to Trump.
Regardless of how we feel about the courts' performance in general, I have two observations about the impact of this trial. On one level, this court presided over jury selection, evidence presentation, and Trump's conviction. Although Trump's defense team made numerous objections intended to derail the trial, none were sustained. Of the 12 jurors (and six alternates) selected, Trump's defense team only objected to one juror. Judge Merchan examined this juror further and overruled the objection. The prosecution called 20 witnesses against Trump and the defense, while the defense called two witnesses. One of the defense's witnesses, Robert Costello, had parts of his testimony undermining Cohen refuted when the prosecution introduced emails contradicting him. Costello's testimony may have backfired and helped the prosecution. Although Trump could have testified, he chose not to refute any of the evidence presented against him. His defense team did not think his testimony would have been credible. After deliberating nine and a half hours, the jury convicted Trump of the 34 charges against him.
On another level, however, this trial has been the fodder for disinformation intended to elevate Trump to the presidency. Specifically, the purpose of spreading disinformation about our legal system is to disrupt it so that it will not be able to hold Trump and his followers accountable. The right-wing media, Republican officeholders, and Trump himself spread disinformation about the trial and lies about the judge, prosecutors, and the trial itself. Nearly every aspect of Trump's trial became the basis for disinformation. When Judge Merchan ordered Trump to stop vilifying witnesses, prosecutors, jurors, court staff and their families, and his family, Trump enlisted surrogates to continue the slander. Numerous elected Republican officials attended court sessions, dressed in dark suits and wearing red ties, to slander the people Trump was ordered to stop slandering.
Regardless of how we feel about the courts' performance in general, I have two observations about the impact of this trial. On one level, this court presided over jury selection, evidence presentation, and Trump's conviction. Although Trump's defense team made numerous objections intended to derail the trial, none were sustained. Of the 12 jurors (and six alternates) selected, Trump's defense team only objected to one juror. Judge Merchan examined this juror further and overruled the objection. The prosecution called 20 witnesses against Trump and the defense, while the defense called two witnesses. One of the defense's witnesses, Robert Costello, had parts of his testimony undermining Cohen refuted when the prosecution introduced emails contradicting him. Costello's testimony may have backfired and helped the prosecution. Although Trump could have testified, he chose not to refute any of the evidence presented against him. His defense team did not think his testimony would have been credible. After deliberating nine and a half hours, the jury convicted Trump of the 34 charges against him.
On another level, however, this trial has been the fodder for disinformation intended to elevate Trump to the presidency. Specifically, the purpose of spreading disinformation about our legal system is to disrupt it so that it will not be able to hold Trump and his followers accountable. The right-wing media, Republican officeholders, and Trump himself spread disinformation about the trial and lies about the judge, prosecutors, and the trial itself. Nearly every aspect of Trump's trial became the basis for disinformation. When Judge Merchan ordered Trump to stop vilifying witnesses, prosecutors, jurors, court staff and their families, and his family, Trump enlisted surrogates to continue the slander. Numerous elected Republican officials attended court sessions, dressed in dark suits and wearing red ties, to slander the people Trump was ordered to stop slandering.
Donald Trump with Stephanie Clifford, whose stage name is Stormy Daniels, in a 2006 photo uploaded to her Myspace.com account.
Even though the Justice Department prosecuted and convicted Michael Cohen for the same election interference that Trump was being tried for, these disinformation spreaders insist that no prosecutable crime has been committed. Trump's supporters cite numerous reasons why Trump should be exempt from prosecution. They complain that the meeting with the adult actress Stormy Daniels occurred over 15 years ago. Thus, Trump's supporters claim the only reason Trump is being tried now must be political. Of course, to some degree, every time a prosecutor decides to seek an indictment, he makes a political decision. Prosecutors consider a conviction's likelihood and a sentence's deterrent effect. A jury found him guilty regardless of why prosecutors decided to pursue this case against Trump.
Trump was named an accomplice in the same crime for which Cohen was convicted in 2018. The failure to try Trump earlier resulted, in part, from his of the Department of Justice's internal prohibition against indicting a sitting president. Also, Attorney General William Barr, appointed by Trump subverted charges being bought against Trump. Cohen, along with Enquirer publisher David Pecker conspired to interfere in the 2016 election by suppressing information about Trump's sexual associations with two women, Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. This information would have had double its usual impact because it came on the tail-end of another shocking story of Trump’s sexual behavior. A recording of Trump referring to women in highly inappropriate language and explaining his sense of entitlement to sexually violate women was released, causing significant members of his party to call for his withdrawal from the 2016 election.
Another allegation made by Trump and his followers is that he was convicted on the testimony of a liar, Michael Cohen, and salacious testimony by Stormy Daniels that was prejudicial. The prosecution relied primarily on other witnesses and documentary evidence to corroborate Cohen's testimony. Also, the judge's instructions prohibited the jury from returning a guilty verdict based only on Cohen's uncorroborated testimony. While parts of Daniel's testimony were salacious, Trump's defense team introduced the prurient testimony. Trump's defense tried to denigrate Daniels because of her profession. Most observers opined that the defense team would have been better served if it had simply ascertained that she had no first-hand knowledge about the charges Trump faced. Although Trump and his followers claim he could not introduce the witnesses he wanted, the judge did not prevent him from calling any witnesses; and he also could have testified.
Trump accused Judge Merchan of having a conflict of interest in his case. The apparent basis of this charge was that Merchan contributed $35 to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign in 2016 and that his adult daughter worked as a Democratic fundraiser. Of course, in true Trump fashion, he had earlier claimed that he’d once given to Hillary Clinton too. However, many commentators believe the real reason Trump attacked Merchan and his family is Merchan's heritage as a Colombian immigrant. Trump has had a history of attacking authorities whose heritage is Latino, although he has praised another judge of Latino heritage, Aileen Cannon who was born in
Columbia to a Cuban mother.
Most ominously, some of Trump's followers have accused Judge Merchan of presiding over a show trial. These Trump followers undoubtedly understand that show trials were held in communist Russia under Stalin's regime. Show trials were not held for fact-finding or dispensing justice. Instead, they were held to purge people the state had decided were undesirable because of their politics or ethnicity. The outcomes of show trials were, of course, predetermined. Above all, show trials were events about which disinformation explained why the state had proscribed the defendant.
The outcome of Trump's trial was not predetermined or known. Trump had every opportunity to defend himself. And like all defendants in our legal system, he had the right to make serious errors in his defense. A jury of his peers found him guilty, although his verdict does not mean he will serve even one day in prison. Nonetheless, Trump and his followers will persist in using this trial to spread disinformation about the legal system. They are not interested in justice but in disrupting our institutions to seize power. The relief I first felt was short-lived.
Trump was named an accomplice in the same crime for which Cohen was convicted in 2018. The failure to try Trump earlier resulted, in part, from his of the Department of Justice's internal prohibition against indicting a sitting president. Also, Attorney General William Barr, appointed by Trump subverted charges being bought against Trump. Cohen, along with Enquirer publisher David Pecker conspired to interfere in the 2016 election by suppressing information about Trump's sexual associations with two women, Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. This information would have had double its usual impact because it came on the tail-end of another shocking story of Trump’s sexual behavior. A recording of Trump referring to women in highly inappropriate language and explaining his sense of entitlement to sexually violate women was released, causing significant members of his party to call for his withdrawal from the 2016 election.
Another allegation made by Trump and his followers is that he was convicted on the testimony of a liar, Michael Cohen, and salacious testimony by Stormy Daniels that was prejudicial. The prosecution relied primarily on other witnesses and documentary evidence to corroborate Cohen's testimony. Also, the judge's instructions prohibited the jury from returning a guilty verdict based only on Cohen's uncorroborated testimony. While parts of Daniel's testimony were salacious, Trump's defense team introduced the prurient testimony. Trump's defense tried to denigrate Daniels because of her profession. Most observers opined that the defense team would have been better served if it had simply ascertained that she had no first-hand knowledge about the charges Trump faced. Although Trump and his followers claim he could not introduce the witnesses he wanted, the judge did not prevent him from calling any witnesses; and he also could have testified.
Trump accused Judge Merchan of having a conflict of interest in his case. The apparent basis of this charge was that Merchan contributed $35 to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign in 2016 and that his adult daughter worked as a Democratic fundraiser. Of course, in true Trump fashion, he had earlier claimed that he’d once given to Hillary Clinton too. However, many commentators believe the real reason Trump attacked Merchan and his family is Merchan's heritage as a Colombian immigrant. Trump has had a history of attacking authorities whose heritage is Latino, although he has praised another judge of Latino heritage, Aileen Cannon who was born in
Columbia to a Cuban mother.
Most ominously, some of Trump's followers have accused Judge Merchan of presiding over a show trial. These Trump followers undoubtedly understand that show trials were held in communist Russia under Stalin's regime. Show trials were not held for fact-finding or dispensing justice. Instead, they were held to purge people the state had decided were undesirable because of their politics or ethnicity. The outcomes of show trials were, of course, predetermined. Above all, show trials were events about which disinformation explained why the state had proscribed the defendant.
The outcome of Trump's trial was not predetermined or known. Trump had every opportunity to defend himself. And like all defendants in our legal system, he had the right to make serious errors in his defense. A jury of his peers found him guilty, although his verdict does not mean he will serve even one day in prison. Nonetheless, Trump and his followers will persist in using this trial to spread disinformation about the legal system. They are not interested in justice but in disrupting our institutions to seize power. The relief I first felt was short-lived.