Opinion: Trump’s utterly avoidable unforced error
Opinion by CNN Contributors
(CNN) — CNN Opinion asked our contributors to weigh in on Trump’s conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records. The views expressed in these commentaries are their own. View more opinion on CNN.
Patrick Brown: Trump verdict is a pyrrhic victory for Democrats
The ranks of the anti-Trump #Resistance haven’t celebrated this hard since November 7, 2020. Whatever the polls have said up until Thursday about the odds this November, progressives might tell themselves, being found guilty of all 34 charges of falsifying business records could be the silver bullet that prevents a second Trump term.
But let’s think about that logic: Trump’s personal eccentricities and baggage have been well-known for years. The act for which hush money was proffered — allegedly cheating on his postpartum wife with an adult film actress — has been known since 2018. Are there really that many voters whose view of Trump as a man, or politician, could be altered by bookkeeping irregularities? How many would-be Trump voters will be swayed against him because of miscategorized business expenses?
It seems far more likely that this will be just another event that confirms Republicans’ preconceptions. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and all progressives in good standing get their wish: seeing “convicted felon” after Trump’s name.
Republicans will continue to argue, as Trump did outside the courthouse after the verdict, that this case was a “rigged verdict since day one.” (The Biden campaign’s decision to add to the partisan slant of the trial by holding a press conference in front of the court’s building featuring actor Robert De Niro on Tuesday adds fuel to that fire.)
This verdict may ding Trump’s poll numbers slightly in the short run. But by November it will almost certainly be long forgotten. Or, perhaps more likely, it will only be remembered by Republicans as more proof the “elites” were willing to bend every rule in the book to go after Trump, and he refused to back down.
Patrick T. Brown is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank and advocacy group based in Washington, DC. He is also a former senior policy adviser to Congress’ Joint Economic Committee.
Stacy Schneider: How Trump could end up at Rikers
This case is so unprecedented that it’s hard to predict whether Judge Juan Merchan will give former President Donald Trump jail time. I’ve appeared before the judge, but this is the most unusual sentencing situation I’ve seen and it’s impossible to predict how he’ll react. There’s a good chance that Merchan won’t give Trump jail time in the end.
However, in other financial crime or business crime cases in New York, well-established businessmen have been sent to prison. Within the bounds of the law’s limits, sentencing is purely within the discretion of the judge, and every judge sentences differently.
The sentencing options for Trump’s offenses include time served, probation, a fine or a maximum range of 1 and 1/3 years to 4 years in prison for each of the 34 counts. If he gives Trump a jail sentence, however, it is my strong prediction that it will be for no more than 1 and 1/3 years. But the judge could sentence Trump to less than a year in prison, or even a couple of months if he wanted to.
According to the standard practice in New York, if Trump were to be given less than a year, he would serve the time in the city jail, the notorious Rikers. This jail is literally isolated on an island. It is one of the most depressing and frightening prisons I have ever visited. If he gets more than a year, he would be sent to a New York state prison many miles from Manhattan, likely upstate.
In my experience in this type of case, the most typical sentence would be five years’ probation. However, that would mean Trump would have to frequently report to his probation officer who would monitor him to make sure he was obeying the law. Every time he traveled, he’d have to get permission from his probation officer. That doesn’t make sense for a presidential candidate or a former president.
I do expect that Trump’s anticipated appeals will be unsuccessful. There’s always grounds for appeal on evidentiary rulings or jury instructions, but it doesn’t mean that the grounds would be strong. In fact, I did not see anything egregious done by the court that prejudiced the defendant so badly to justify a clearly winnable appeal.
Stacy Schneider is a criminal defense attorney in Manhattan and former contestant on the reality show “The Apprentice.”
Timothy C. Parlatore: The defense bungled the case
The bottom line is that this was a very defensible case that was not well defended. From the beginning, the defense lacked a coherent and easily understandable theme, and that lack of direction carried through the cross-examinations and closing arguments.
The defense needed to simplify its argument and get the jury to focus on the weakest point of the case. That was clearly the lack of evidence — aside from Michael Cohen’s unreliable testimony — showing that Trump knew about the falsification of business records. Spending any time on the alleged affairs with Karen McDougal or even Stormy Daniels (which Trump denies), gave more oxygen to the prosecution’s case tying the “catch-and-kill” schemes to election interference.
While Trump is sure to appeal, a ruling is unlikely to happen until well after the election. While there are potential avenues for appeal, ineffective assistance of counsel will not be one of them because the standard is way too high.
One of the most surprising things about today’s guilty verdict was the speed with which the jurors made their decision. It was also surprising that former President Donald Trump was found guilty of all counts. I had expected that the jury would, at most, split the charges to convict on some and not others.
Timothy C. Parlatore is a is a CNN legal commentator, criminal defense attorney, managing partner of Parlatore Law Group, LLP and Navy veteran. He has represented clients in high-profile cases in various courts throughout the country.
Paul Begala: Democrats should put Trump ‘on trial’ for things that actually matter to voters
Now that a jury has convicted former President Donald Trump, can we please spend the next 159 days focusing on the other 335 million Americans who were not found guilty of falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments to an adult film actress in an attempt to influence the 2016 election?
Polls show that most American voters’ minds will not be changed by the verdict— and for good reason. Presidential elections are not a reward for good moral character; they are a job interview. The essential question voters ask is not: guilty or innocent? It is: What are you going to do for me?
Trump’s reaction to the conviction will likely be his patented toxic mix of vengeance, grievance and conspiracy. Instead of validating Trump’s narcissism, Democrats should turn the camera away from Trump and toward the American people.
Democrats should focus on voters’ lives, not Trump’s criminality. Democrats should put Trump “on trial” for suggesting he was open to cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; for wanting to kick millions of Americans off Obamacare; for promising to roll back environmental rules and policies if oil executives raised $1 billion to return him to the White House; for stacking the Supreme Court with right-wing partisans who overturned Roe v. Wade and might come after gay marriage and contraception next. They should hammer Trump for tanking the strongest border security bill in decades; for kowtowing to the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, and for wanting to cut taxes for his fellow billionaires.
Campaigns should be about the voters’ lives, not the politicians. Democrats should make the case that Trump’s policies would decimate the middle class and that ought to be a (metaphorical) crime.
Paul Begala, a Democratic strategist and CNN political commentator, was a political consultant for Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign in 1992 and served as a counselor to Clinton in the White House.
Jennifer Rodgers: Proof that Trump is not above the law
The conviction is not a surprise, given the strength of the evidence and the law as recited to the jury by Judge Juan Merchan.
Prosecutors put forth a solid case, and the jurors appeared serious and diligent, working while the eyes of the world were on them in this historic case.
This is not just a victory for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and his prosecutors, but for democracy and the rule of law. Despite former President Donald Trump’s attempts to undermine the case by calling it a “witch hunt,” what happened in that courtroom was the epitome of what our criminal justice system should be: a fair-minded judge, an unbiased jury — even including one juror who gets the news from Trump’s Truth Social — and a reasoned result.
Now the attention turns to sentencing, which is scheduled for July 11. During the trial, Merchan repeatedly said he did not want to imprison Trump for violating the gag order barring the former president from making public statements about the witnesses, jurors and others. Now, Merchan will be forced to decide whether Trump’s 34 felony convictions warrant that penalty. This is an unenviable task to say the least, and Merchan will be vilified no matter what he decides. Will he treat Trump more like a 77-year-old first time, non-violent offender? Or as a felon 34 times over, who not only has zero remorse but who will certainly continue his constant attacks on the system that dared to seek accountability for his crimes? Time will tell.
Jennifer Rodgers is a former federal prosecutor, adjunct professor of clinical law at NYU School of Law, lecturer-in-law at Columbia Law School and a CNN legal analyst.
SE Cupp: GOP voters should care but probably won’t
Thursday marked an unprecedented event in American history and a sad day for our democracy. A former president and current presidential nominee for the Republican Party was found guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records. And yet, Donald Trump, now officially a convicted felon, will likely retain the support of the GOP and his voters.
But what an ironic and utterly avoidable unforced error on the part of Trump. Was the hush money even necessary? In hindsight, knowing his voters and how much they were and still are willing to forgive him, it’s likely they wouldn’t have even cared in 2016 if they’d learned that he’d had an affair with an adult film star a decade earlier — which he denies. After all, they were already aware of many of his personal peccadillos and loved him anyways.
As Trump even said during the 2016 campaign, “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters.” But it’s never the crime, it’s the cover up, as they say. Will his voters care now that they’re about to elect a convicted felon? Probably not. But how this will impact swing and undecided voters is the looming question — they might not be so forgiving.
SE Cupp is a CNN political commentator.
Joey Jackson: Cohen’s testimony was too much for Team Trump to overcome
Former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial was hotly contested, with the defense arguing that the prosecution’s star witness, former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, was the only direct link to establish the former president’s guilt.
In order to convict, they argued that the jury had to accept Cohen’s version of events. Team Trump called Cohen the “Greatest Liar of All Time” (the “GLOAT” for short) in addition to being a biased witness that hated Trump and had a huge axe to grind. The defense lambasted him, asserting that the jury could not convict based upon his word.
With the first note that the jury sent to Judge Juan Merchan, it became apparent that they did not disregard Cohen’s testimony at all — as the jury instructions would have permitted. Instead, they appeared to be looking for information that would support Cohen’s claims, as well as other evidence that would be suggestive of Trump’s guilt based upon the surrounding circumstances.
Ultimately, the corroboration for Cohen’s testimony was just too much for Team Trump to overcome, and for the jury to ignore. The reasonable inferences that could be drawn from Trump’s actions were simply way too damning.
Joey Jackson is a criminal defense attorney and a legal analyst for CNN.
The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2024 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
