The same key facts were considered in Trump’s first impeachment.
Trump’s first impeachment seems like ancient history. But House impeachment investigators interviewed Hope Hicks and Michael Cohen and dug into the facts about payments to hush women before the 2016 election. The hush-money scheme was the primary purpose of impeachment, as obtaining public office by fraudulent means can be sufficient grounds for impeachment.
Although the impeachment ultimately focused solely on Ukraine’s “perfect judgment,” the acquisition of the presidency through corrupt means is at the heart of Mr. Bragg’s case. Mr. Bragg will argue that Mr. Trump violated New York state law when he allegedly falsified documents to disguise the hush money. (“The crux is not about money for sex,” he told WNYC’s Brian Lehrer. “It’s about conspiring to taint the presidential election and lying on New York corporate records to cover it up. You could say that.”)
A conviction would impose accountability for the scheme that helped propel President Trump to the White House. It would be an important confirmation of the rule of law.
Yes, if convicted, his punishment could include prison time.
Norman Eisen, a former lawyer for the House impeachment managers (who investigated the hush-money scheme mentioned above), wrote in his analysis and summary of the court documents, “Testing Trump: A Guide to His First Election Obstruction Criminal Trial.” ”.,” uses its own arguments to argue that “Mr. There are numerous examples of first-time offenders being sentenced to prison.” Eisen explains how he came to that conclusion:
According to aggregate data on cases in New York state, the most serious charge at arraignment is first-degree falsification of business records (in which the court ultimately imposes a sentence), and about one in 10 cases results in a prison sentence. An analysis of raw data available from New York State shows that between November 2020 and March 20, 2024, there were 457 cases where the most serious charge at arraignment was first-degree falsification of business records, resulting in a final disposition. It was shown that there was a case. Fifty-five of these cases (approximately 12% of the total) resulted in prison sentences.
He compared the case to a case in which a first-time offender who falsified business records for a campaign finance violation was sentenced to jail, and concluded that jail is not an unusual punishment in this case. Judges will give Trump some time to consider Trump and the number of other pending criminal cases against him for his conduct, including threatening court officials and ignoring gag orders, when determining punishment. There is a good chance that he will be sentenced to prison.
Trump’s lawyers dismissed the possibility of an immunity defense.
Regardless of the outcome, the Supreme Court’s decision on immunity in the January 6 case will not help President Trump in New York for two reasons. First, the hush money plan was established before the election, but payments continued throughout the president’s term. And second, Mr. Trump’s lawyers argued that “the case cannot be removed and cannot be removed under federal law because of the preponderance of evidence suggesting that this matter was purely a personal matter for the President.” He withdrew his appeal against U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein’s ruling that the case was not preempted by the law. It’s a cover-up of an embarrassing incident. ” President Trump’s lawyers acknowledged Hellerstein’s ruling that “money paid to adult film stars is not related to official acts of the president.”
Having failed to keep this issue alive, President Trump will not be allowed to raise it again, even if the Supreme Court rules in his favor.The New York Supreme Court is just that. Judge Juan Melchan last week rejected President Trump’s last-minute maneuver to delay the trial.
Mr. Trump’s actions could risk contempt of the court’s judgment, or worse.
Many Americans have expressed dissatisfaction with the legitimacy of the courts and the lack of adequate punishment for President Trump’s attacks on members of the judiciary and their families. That may change.
On March 26, Marchan issued an order prohibiting him from speaking publicly about witnesses, attorneys other than Bragg and his family, court staff and jurors. Within days, Trump attacked Marchand’s daughter, leading a judge to expand the order.
But comments made outside the courtroom may not constitute President Trump’s greatest risk of being held in contempt. He has to sit in court day after day as his former colleagues (including Cohen) testify against him and prosecutors accuse him of a cover-up to win the election. . Few Trump watchers think Trump has the self-control to remain silent. So what?
The judge may set increasing fines. (New York Civil Court Judge Arthur Engoron twice fined Mr. Trump for violating gag orders barring him from making certain public statements, but Mr. Trump quickly stopped them.) In theory. Mr Marchand could also have detained him, even for short periods, in a holding cell behind the courtroom not used by defendants. On bail.
Trump’s true reversal: His actions could negatively impact judges’ sentencing decisions and juries’ convictions. At the end of the day, they will have to decide whether Trump is the kind of person who would flout the law.
Mr. Trump does not intend to place responsibility on the “deep state.” And voters may uphold a conviction.
President Trump continues to play the victim of persecution and election interference by alleged “deep state” actors. (If anything, he’s using the trial and his rants about it to win elections.) But he’s wrong — it’s because he’s been treated worse than any criminal defendant. Not just because they are probably treated better.
An ordinary grand jury in New York State will indict him, and a standard trial jury will find him guilty. Karen Friedman Agnifilo, a veteran of the Manhattan prosecutor’s office, reminds us: He would have chosen the people on this jury. ” Trump will face 10 peremptory challenges (to eliminate jurors for virtually any reason) his Jury verdict.
President Trump should not expect to evoke sympathy for a conviction. A Research Collaborative poll on Trump’s four trials found that “three-quarters of voters would vote if convicted, including 97% of Democrats, 80% of independents, and 49% of Republicans. , believes Trump should serve time in prison. Another Politico poll found that by a margin of more than 2-1, respondents said a conviction would make them less likely to support Trump (32%); (13%). In other words, voters may convict; President Trump is imprisoned while being punished for desertion. No wonder President Trump seems increasingly desperate to avoid a trial.
