(Washington, DC) Historically, the conviction of a former President of the United States for a common crime is a mammoth event. Mind-blowing.
Judicially, on the other hand, the matter is quite trivial.
Let’s start with justice, since after all (or above all) it was a trial.
Let us not be impressed by the number of guilty verdicts. There was no real question that Trump was partly guilty, even if it was technically possible. The 34 counts are basically 34 pieces of the same cake. He was either going to be acquitted or convicted in full – barring a rather rare case of aborted trial due to insurmountable jury disagreement. And even with 15 or 19 leaders, it wouldn’t change anything in substance.
The crime was not so obvious, it is true. Paying a porn actress $130,000 is not a crime. Falsifying a company’s accounting records to disguise such a payment is a minor offense. For this to reach the level of a felony, this camouflage must be fraudulent. That is to say, it serves to facilitate, commit or hide another crime.
And in this case, for the prosecution, the crime was a violation of New York or federal election laws – either attempting to influence the outcome of the election by withholding information or exceeding allowable spending amounts . It was also a violation of recordkeeping laws and tax laws.
As Judge Juan Merchan explained to the jurors, the State’s Attorney did not have to prove the commission of this other crime, or even what particular crime it was. He had to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the falsification of the books to camouflage the payment consciously concealed another criminal project, whatever it may be.
Now, let’s forget for a moment that the accused’s name is Donald Trump.
Let’s get back to very down to earth things. When a person with no criminal record shouts his innocence from every platform, a jury expects him to come and testify. The right to silence is exercised at one’s own risk. Defendant Trump chose not to testify.
Second, Trump’s ex-lawyer Michael Cohen has lied before, including under oath. He is in the same position as an informer in a criminal organization: he is an accomplice who turns his coat around. We must be wary of these witnesses. But the essential elements of his testimony were corroborated: the reason for the payments, the system of buying scandals to cover them up, the fact that it was part of the electoral strategy, the total knowledge of Trump, on whose behalf he was acting.
We cannot say that other than attacking Cohen, the defense has been very impressive in deconstructing the prosecution, much less in presenting another theory justifying these payments.
Will Trump go to jail? By standard standards, this is unlikely. American experts note that this felony is of the lowest level. But beyond that, in New York as in Montreal, we will first consider the fact that the convicted person, at 77 years old, has no criminal record. Certainly, he expresses no remorse, which works against him. But forget about the number of charges, this is one continuous crime, for which the maximum is four years in prison. This is a case that does not justify it. There will be an appeal anyway, and everything will be suspended for months.
Let’s move on to politics. Republicans will actually say this is all political. It is true that state prosecutors are elected in the United States, and that the case was led by Alvin Bragg, a prosecutor elected under the Democratic banner.
The system, however, has its counterbalances. First, a “grand jury” of citizens authorized the charges. Then, a jury selected by the parties returned the verdict. Finally, Judge Juan Merchan has an excellent reputation and does not deserve any of the insults that Trump has thrown at him.
We will note the historical irony we are witnessing. It is the Republicans, for 50 years, who have politicized criminal justice, made it more severe, more implacable in the United States. All the legal inflation (number of charges, harsh sentences, etc.) has been pushed by generally Republican legislators from east to west. It is the party of law and order.
But this is now the party that complains about Trump’s persecution by the state justice system, as the left traditionally does. We cannot claim that the accused Trump lacked the resources to defend himself. The criminal justice system itself is now being indicted by the party that fattened it the most.
Polls in recent months suggest that many Republican voters would abandon Trump if he were convicted in criminal court. This is a very hypothetical question asked months before the trial. So far, no accusations or unfavorable news have affected his popularity. It would be surprising if millions of people suddenly changed their minds.
Already, Republicans have prepared the ground by denouncing the trial. Consider that several elected officials went to court to support Trump. Normally, elected officials going to put pressure on a judge, a court, a jury would have been furiously denounced, unanimously. Not this time…
The net effect of this movement of judicial solidarity is to neutralize the impact of the verdict among the Republicans. All with Trump!
We don’t see any of them, at least none who still have power, denouncing the future candidate – it’s a little late, by the way…
This absolutely unprecedented verdict, which would have finished off any other candidate in American political history, is therefore without foreseeable consequences. We can even say that it is already recycled for financing purposes, because isn’t this an illustration of the unleashing of progressive forces against Trump? Evidence of corruption in this country? Proof of the terminal sinking of the institutions of this country which has one last chance left?
At least on this, there is consensus in both parties: it is up to the people to decide, in November. Not at court.